Raf

imablvr: Ok, I'll agree regarding the Sound of Music and it's strong story (although I must confess, I fail to see what's the big deal about this musical. I'm a big fan of musicals, and everyone treats this like it's the holy grail of musicals when, to me, it's okay at best. Then again, maybe I'm just having a bad reaction to "Eidelweiss," quite possibly the worst song in musical theater history that was not in "Carrie"). Cabaret did have a story. But in my opinion, so did Chicago, which is part of what I tried to point out. Oh goodie, I get to share my Phantom of the Opera story. First off, the musical never fails to give me a pounding headache. Something about Prima Donna. I got into an "argument" once with the theater critic of the New York Daily News (Howard Kissell), because he thought Phantom was a better musical than Les Miserables (don't you say nothin bad about my Les Miz). So I disagreed with him and, to make a long story short, he replied:

I thought Chicago was a wonderful movie. I don't agree that the story was weak: the story in a musical is usually exaggerated and pronounced precisely because it's not a straight drama. For example, can we honestly believe that Tony and Maria in West Side Story would be able to develop such a powerful bond between them after an initial meeting that lasted less than two minutes? That Tony would be willing to die for her within 24 hours? That Tony would run through a Spanish neighborhood calling out the name "Maria!" and only one girl would answer? Of course not. Why does Marian the Librarian fall for the Music Man? How stupid is Christine, not realizing that the "Angel of Music" is a deranged homicidal composer living underneath the Paris Opera House? Oh, and Seymour: don't feed the plant. Geesh. So, back to Chicago. The movie is not about a murder and defense strategy. It's about sensationalism, fame and fortune. It's about notoreity and cynicism. It's about unscrupulous lawyers and opportunistic murderesses. It's about alibis, reasons and excuses. It's about the invisibility of normal, decent people in a world dominated by the sensational, the famous, the notorious and the cynical. Yeah, the story was weak, until you start to look at it. Then you look closer and you realize maybe it has a lot to say after all. Rene Zellwegger wasn't supposed to be glamorous. That's the point. If not for her notoriety, she never would have become famous. Catherine Zetahhhhhhhh Jones was awesome and deserved that award. Queen Latifah - "just a big black woman?" I submit you missed the movie. Her performance, singing, acting, her very presence: sublime. The only reason I could see for denying her a nomination is that she simply made her part look to easy. Richard Gere did fine. But I really got a kick out of John Riley (the husband), who so perfectly captured the concept of being "Mr. Cellophane" that he threatened to make his song redundant. So a good cast, a good story, great singing and choreography, fantastic editing, and other crucial filmmaking qualities worked together to bring a little over two terrific hours of film. Now, I didn't see Gangs of New York, but bravo to a sterling effort, from all I've heard. I didn't see The Hours, but frankly, nothing I've heard about it makes me want to see it (Nicole Kidman's acting was so great! She was so ugly I didn't even know it was her! No thanks. I'll pass). I will see the Pianist when I get a chance. I promise. And Lord of the Rings, well, God Bless Peter Jackson, but it did not belong on the list this year. Sorry. It just din't.

I watched that. Moore got roundly booed because he made it personal against Bush and said nothing relevant. Adrien Brody, on the other hand, got a standing O because his words were eloquent and hopeful. Sometimes it's just in the delivery.

Peter Pan's gots kids?

Some useful info, from a variety of sources... Slate.com I would htink that one cymbal crash is a little extreme. But that's music, and irrelevant to this discussion. Plagiarism means the existence of similarities that are "beyond probability or coincidence.? I lost the source of that quote. From Plagiarism.org Feel free to peruse the following Web site as well: Defining Plagiarism Now, Oldiesman, if you refute the above definitions of plagiarism, that's fine. But do so. If you do NOT refute the above definitions of plagiarism, will you now acknowledge that Wierwille plagiarized Stiles at the beginning of chapter one of "his" book?

Oldiesman, I respectfully disagree with you. It is the existence of similarities that prove plagiarism. It is not the existence of differences that disprove it. The similarities are there and they are overwhelming. Try this exercise: take the two books to an academic you respect. Ask them to read the first two pages of each book and to offer their impressions. Don't tell them why you're asking. Do you have ANY doubt as to what the academic will tell you? I don't.

When you start acting like an individual with an independent mind, I will start treating you like one. As long as you keep acting like a spoiled, namecalling, disrespectful obnoxious brat, I will continue treating you like one. Now go fetch a brain. There's a storm tonight.

Seaspray thinks it's acceptable to refer to me repeatedly as a Pharisee. So I've decided to call him by a name more reflective of his personality. Apparently, that's fair game.

This quote establishes that Paul claimed his gospel was by revelation. It says NOTHING of PFAL or how the class and book came to be. This verse makes it clear that Peter believed the Old Testament was God-breathed. It says nothing of PFAL or how the book and class came to be. This scripture is a reference to the God-breathed Word, not to PFAL. It says nothing of how that class or book came to be. PFAL is a useful class. It is not perfect. It is not the perfect work of a perfect God. It contains errors, great and small. It contains contradictions. It is possible to understand the Bible without PFAL. Many have done it before, many will do it again.

You've got a few items here worth responding to... 1. I think the statement that all scripture interprets itself IS an actual error: BUT that Wierwille leaves himself an out. He also says that there's another option, namely, that there is no interpretation possible. So, for those scriptures that do not interpret themselves, there is no interpretation possible. That would satisfy the quotes in revelation and several other verses. As for the issue of Orientalisms, I'm leaning toward Zixar's view. The figures of speech and Orientalisms are assumed in the writing of Scripture. WE need an outside source to understand certain "strange scriptures" (as one book called them. But the original readers did not. The fact that we CAN argue the point means that, even assuming you are absolutely right, it's not an "actual error" but an interpretational, hermeneutical, or some other type of error. (Once we head into that category, my argument loses much of its strength). 2. "The principles pointed out ... were present." Notice that Wierwille does NOT say that the principles he pointed out were stated or documented. I think I need to break out a subset of actual errors called "baseless speculations." Recall that on the list of actual errors, a couple of them say that in order to be discounted as an error, all the other errors would have to be refuted. This error certainly falls under that category. Maybe I'll reset some of the errors to reflect that category. 3. I don't recall Wierwille saying that eternal life was not available before Pentecost. Before you refute the statement, please quote it so that we all know what you're discussing.

Igor, Yes. Yes, it is. For PFAL is NOT "The Word of God." How do we know this? Because PFAL fails to meet its VERY OWN definition of what it means to be THE Word of God. Further, according to PFAL, it is a sin to CHANGE the Word of God. Substituting "Power For Abundant Living" instead of "The Bible" in the paragraph you quote CHANGES the word that's written. Changing the Word leaves you with (according to PFAL) Nothing. Men's Opinion. Exalting "nothing" and "men's opinion" to the status of "The Word of God" is idolatrous. Wierwille frequently taught that PFAL was a means of leading people to God's Word. He NEVER taught that PFAL was God's Word itself (LarryP's enjoyable posts notwithstanding). Mike can trot out a few isolated "verses" in which Wierwille seems to be claiming that his writings are the equivalent of scripture. But look at what Wierwille is really saying, for he does NOT elevate his own words to that level. **** One more thing: enough with the accusations of King James worship already. It's a straw man. No one, not one person on this message board, has claimed that the King James Bible perfectly communicates the Word of God. You are striking at an opponent that does not exist, and it's getting tiresome. PFAL Does NOT equal The Word of God and therefore does NOT equal The Bible (ie, the scriptres as originally given).

I submit that the "Word of God" here in p. 15 is the Bible, as clearly and repeatedly defined in p. 11. This is still p. 15, and still a clear reference to the Bible. That's all that is written on p. 63. p. 82. Clearly, the Word of God and the Bible are used interchangeably in each of the above quotes. The examples of this are repeated and conclusive. The Bible is the Word of God. The Bible does not say that David was a man after God's own heart at any time AFTER the incident with Bathsheba and Uriah. You propose an answer that is circular in its reasoning: "Wierwille's writing IS God's Word: therefore, when Wierwille said it, that settled it." That's circular and false, just like your entire thesis. But heaven forbid I should try to reason with someone who is so committed to his idolatry. Come back to God's Word, Mike. That's the only way to truly master PFAL.

Oldiesman, Do you think the similarities of RTHST, p. 3 and the Stiles book, p. 15 are plagiarism or coincidence? I think the similarities prove plagiarism. The first scriptural references in the Stiles book (starting on p. 15) are, in order: John 14:16-17 Galatians 3:2,14 Acts 8:14-19 Acts 8:36-38 Acts 19:1-6 Acts 2:38-39 Acts 1:4-5 Matthew 28:19-20 Ephesians 5:18 Acts 1:8 Galatians 4:19 John 14:16-17 The first scriptural references of RTHST, starting on p. 3, in order: John 14:17 Acts 1:8 Acts 8:14-19 Acts 19:1-6 Acts 2:38-39 (in a footnote). Acts 1:4-5 Matthew 28:19-20 Acts 2:39 (repeated) Ephesians 5:18 I Corinthians 14:5,13,37 John 16:13-15 I think it's clear that there's a digression in Chapter One, but that Wierwille is clearly making the same argument using the same verses in pretty much the same order. It's not exact, but it's eerily close. Also, consider the wording. Wierwille did NOT write a single one of the following sentences: The similarities to the first chapter of RTHST are uncanny, especially if you were to adjust for doctrinal differences. I'll bet good money earlier editions of RTHST were closer, but I don't have them handy. More later.

CLEAR! (WHOOMP!) BEEP, BEEP, BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP We're losing it. All right everyone, we're going to try again... CLEAR! (WHOOMP!) BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP Dangit, it's not working. Let's give it another try. CLEAR! (WHOOMP!) BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP :(-->

My understanding is that the original version of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today was a lot shorter than the last edition. There would have had to have been significant additions and changes. This is not unusual in scholarship. As more details come to light, or new theories are propounded, or as mistakes are discovered, authors who know there will be a continued demand for their work will revisit it to make corrections, additions and deletions. The obvious example is dictionaries and encyclopedias. Happens with history books all the time. It's the norm for MANY textbooks. I don't think it's an unusual practice at all. It's my belief that Wierwille could have done one of two things: correct the plagiarism by saying what he wanted to say in his own words, or footnote the living daylights out of his books (at least, the ones where this was a problem). In the case of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, what he seems to have done is rearrange a lot of the thoughts and concepts while mostly retaining the wording. The book definitely plagiarizes Stiles, but I don't have the books of the other authors, so for me to make the comparison would be unfair.

My only criticism of JJ (and God, forgive me for saying it here and not to him directly) is that he lists some things as plagiarism that, by themselves, are not. For example, Bullinger writes that the natural man cannot receive the things of God, that they are foolishness to him, because they need to be spiritually discerned. Wierwille writes a remarkably similar sentence. JJ cries plagiarism. Well, DUH, they're both quoting scripture! I think Oldiesman correctly notes that JJ is willing to see infractions where none exists because of his feelings of Wierwille's "heresy." I would encourage Oldiesman and others to do the same thing with JJ (and with myself) that I would have you do to the writings of VPW: Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.

I hope Juedes doesn't mind me copying and pasting from his site (I could just as easliy waited until I got home and retyped it myself, using the later edition of RTHST)... Does anyone ever recall Wierwille ever calling someone a "faith blaster," ever? It's inconsistent with his vocabulary. Wierwille would use the term "believing blaster," if anything. Faith can't be blasted in Wierwillian theology. The word for word theft of that section is conclusive. As I've written before, many a time, the issue is not WHETHER Wierwille plagiarized. He did. Period. The issue is, what importance do we place on his plagiarism? In terms of our appreciation of Wierwille as a researcher, it is greatly diminished. But in terms of our appreciation for THAT WHICH WAS TAUGHT, it should not matter a single bit. The doctrine rises or falls on its own merits. I think arguing about WHETHER Wierwille plagiarized is a waste of time. If you don't believe he did, it's because you're not looking at the evidence. If you want to argue about the EXTENT of his plagiarism, that's another story. But for me, it only distracts from the true issue at hand: What do you think of what was taught? Not the source of it, but the actual doctrine? If it's right, it's right whether it was plagiarized or not. If it's wrong, it's wrong whether it was plagiarized or not. If you want to judge Wierwille, fine, go right ahead. He plagiarized. But that's about the man. If you're worshipping the man, it's necessary to confront this fact. But if you're not worshipping the man, then the doctrine is the issue. My nickel. Keep the change.

Checking in from my vacation... Rottigirl: How could you not remember the Sixth Sense? "I See Dead People," Haley Joel Osmet, Bruce Willis, of course you remember it. That movie scared the bejesus out of me. Really. I can't find my bejesus anymore. Halloween, for whatever reason, hasn't been listed. Yikes and a half.

"The Champ" (the original) "West Side Story."

Come on, Zix, that's too easy... Dr. Wierwille always wrote that the final contents of his books are his responsibility. Therefore, regardless of who was actually putting the words on the page, God told Wierwille that it was okay (just like God told Wierwille to trust, but not save, the old piece of literature that said Jesus was bar-mitzvahed a year too early for his own personal life, and 1370 years too early for history). Sigh.

In The Bible Tells Me So, Wierwille writes that Matthew 27:5 is a summary of Judas' life after the betrayal, and that it does not mean the things there happened in quick succession. He then writes that the term "hanged himself" refers to different types of suicide, and specifically says Judas impaled himself on a stake (mentioned in Acts 1). However, in Jesus Christ Our Passover Wierwille goes into detail about how "Judas hanged himself" really means that he went away choked with grief. In truth, if Wierwille was right the first time, then the events did not happen in quick succession. If Wierwille was right the second time, then the events DID happen in quick succession. If Wierwille was right the first time, then "hanged himself" was a clear reference to Judas' death. If Wierwille was right the second time, "Hanged himself" was clearly NOT a reference to Judas' death. One of the books has got to be wrong. They cannot both be right. How do I handle this error? Simple. Further research into Matthew 27:5 led Wierwille to change his mind. Perfectly acceptable. None of us should lose any sleep over it... UNLESS you hold that all of Wierwille's books are God-breathed and therefore free from error or contradiction. If that's your position, then the burden is on you to explain why and how Wierwille contradicted himself on these two occasions.

Two new actual errors... 1. In Jesus Christ is Not God, Wierwille writes (after quoting John 1:18): p. 116 and 117 The emphases in that last sentence are mine. Interestingly enough, that last sentence in flat-out wrong. In Hebrews 11, Isaac is called Abraham's "only begotten son," and we know for a fact that Abraham had more than one offspring. Wierwille's definition of the word is correct, but he failed to note that the word monogenes can and is used in a figure of speech in Hebrews 11:17. That figurative usage is NOT in the sense of one and only one offspring. The usage in Hebrews 11:17 is one of uniqueness. Hey, could it be that monos, meaning one, and genos, meaning "kind" (a definition Wierwille peculiarly omitted), were combined to form not only the literal term "only begotten," but the figurative term "unique," (ie, "one of a kind")? The next one's easier. 2. In Jesus Christ is Not God, Wierwille writes: page 135. Now, most of us can refute this one with our eyes closed. (There's a whole denomination devoted to an outrageous overemphasis of the correction of this error). God's name was both pronounceable and pronounced. Frequently. The name appears so many times in the Old Testament that your Young's Concordance won't quote each line: it merely lists all the verses for most of four columns. I mean, we are literally talking about, what, a couple of thousand usages in the Old Testament? Would you believe the answer is close to 7,000? The Hebrews pronounced this name. They did so frequently. Most people don't know that the term "thus saith the Lord" is not frequently found in the Bible. Nope. It's the name, not the word "Lord," which appears in those verses. Yahweh is a proper name. It was pronounceable and pronounced, many times. The original pronunciation may be lost to us, but to write, as Wierwille did, that there was no pronounceable name for God reflects a REMARKABLE ignorance of the Biblical usage of God's proper name, Yahweh. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 16, 2003 at 13:41.]

No offense, but that Web site is horrific in its design. Almost like they don't WANT customers. Anyone besides me interested in ordering, be patient.

Oh my God. I'm just... Wow. Speechless. I had no idea. None. Where is this book?

John Juedes literally wrote the book on VPW's plagiarism. I suspect he's well aware of the Leonard connection.