Mike

Don't worry. I'm not going to try to post audio here. That last line was written years ago for another website.

Now a legitimate complaint against me is that after my first 3 sledgehammer statements, the rest are getting weaker and weaker. That pattern repeats with the next one, so I think I’ll skip it for now. This one and the next few are strong again. #14 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement This next "thus saith" statement has already appeared above in this thread as I discussed statement #2, but I purposely avoided distracting myself; I avoided pointing it out. I wonder if anyone noticed this when it happened. If not, we can consider this statement a little hidden, can we not? This statement is the text from the last Session of the class, just before we were led into tongues. When I wrote up statement #2 this same section of the film class was quoted, but I used bold fonts and ALL-CAPS in it to point out the the context of that statement #2. This time I'll boldly fontulate only areas of that class quote for this statement #14 *** In that segment 66 of the '67 film class Dr says: "And, in my classes on Power For Abundant Living, nobody ever gets missed, because, if you're in this class, you've heard the Word, you've believed God's Word, God is always faithful. And nobody ever misses, if you'll do exactly what I tell you to do, right down to the minute detail. "It's like, in I Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 13. Remember where the Apostle Paul said: 'I thank my God, that, when you received the Word of God which you heard of us, you received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth, the Word of God.' "Now, if you'll be as honest with God as that Word of God says, you too can walk into the greatness of the manifestation of the power of God. But, if you think this is just V.P. Wierwille talking, you'll never get it." *** He actually DOES say the words "It's like..." there. We will soon be able to placed audio links in places like this so the recorded audio can be heard again. So this statement #14 is right in there with #2. We all heard it a maximum number of times in the film class.

YES! The pattern is: I say these 22 statements do NOT prove PFAL is God-breathed. Period. Then I also say they do prove 2 tiny but useful items. Can you name those two “being proved” items? Then I name them. Then someone complains that my 22 statements do NOT prove PFAL is God-breathed. Then the pattern repeats. I say these 22 statements do NOT prove PFAL is God-breathed. Period. Then I also say they do prove 2 tiny but useful items. Then I name them. Then someone complains that my 22 statements do NOT prove PFAL is God-breathed. Then the pattern repeats again. I think this is about the 5th or 6th time.

Well, maybe I should just post less. I admit I toy with language, and I make light of stern fire in my face, and I also admitted we'd drifted back into mudslinging after a slightly encouraging afternoon. I was thinking of finishing my 22 statements, then they'd be up for discussion later. Besides, I'm putting more time in here than in FaceBook! By that measure I'm, over the line.

Why did you say so little on the proof that inspired you bet your life on the traditional Canon? That issue was a HUGE one for me for the decades before I came back to PFAL. I study the phenomenon of what makes people accept a theory... mostly in science. I was fascinated with the same issue regarding the Canon and with the contents. I think very few believers think this through. It is scary to do it the first 10 times. Most have zero practice at thinking about this, and greatly prefer to "Leave it for the theologians." Have you ever witnessed to anyone regarding having the God-breathed nature of the standard KJV Canon proved to them? How do you deal with errors in the English Versions? In the Critical Greek Texts? Here are some interesting side questions having nothing to do with my general study of proof. Have you ever tried to prove the KJV Canon and contents to a highly adversarial group of posters, like 5 maybe? How about 65? I think that was the number someone counted on one thread against me about 14 years ago. I was just wondering if you were ever on the other end of a firing squad. I suspect not. Let’s PLEASE calm things down a little? Not so much for my sake, but for your own. Wouldn’t you like it if I was posting all my stuff to TWI? They wont let me, but we know the WAYGB is still around. They must come here. It’s gotta infiltrate a little there.

Go back and re-read. I feel you are goading and not very interested in what I'm saying. Go back and see what I said was parallel. I'm going to quiz you on it.

So, you'd disagree with that guy who told me I'd do well if I focused only on written PFAL? He knew a lot about character problems at TWI, yet he knew none of that was in written PFAL. He thought I'd be somewhat limited, but so are most people who focus only on their KJV. Hardly anyone reads it thoroughly. I do not accept your criticism of me nor Raf's. Your ability to judge is very limited. Right now the character issue I'm trying to figure out how to keep posting here on the topic and not on me and my character. I’m very concerned about cooling things off a bit and relaxing into conversation. It sounds like you want to fight. I’m tired of that and I do not want to stir things up. Give me ideas. Try some peace experiments of your own. Why turn to condemnation. You look a lot like TWI to me. You think they have a monopoly? It’s human frailties that are common to us all. If you think you’re immune, please think again. I was trying to answer as many questions as possible and this derails my effort. We’re drifting right back to mudslinging instead of talking the issues in the text of PFAL.

Nope. Not at all what I said. I'll just let it stand what I did write, and maybe upon re-reading you'll see what I meant. Maybe.

We discussed how University professors write books via their grad students. Often the grad students get little or even zero credit. This is a long standing tradition, and I know I brought it up several times back then, and once weeks ago.. What text in particular had you in mind? Or was that a general complaint?

The see saw is parallel to the ground when the children's' weights are balanced. Another mind image: parallel lines point in the SAME direction, they are harmonious, they are not at "cross purposes," they are balanced in that sense. This section of the class ALWAYS made sense to me, but then again I was 23 and already had a huge Physics, Math, Mechanical Drawing background. That whole teaching was crystal clear and flawless to me, and still is. Has anyone thought to consult the Oxford Dictionary? I wonder what usage #8 of "parallel" is.

"Aren't we full of ourselves?" ... Both churchlady talk and churchlady grammar. Nice. If you're not interested in discussing it any more, and I'm not interested in discussing it any more, then I guess we wont discuss it any more.

I think the ball is in your court. You have not convinced me it was an error. It was VPW's vocabulary, and it communicated to me very well. If you are going to focus on "errors" like this you'll lose my interest.

That does surprise me. There were, and still are, mystery areas in the class for me, and I was certainly not the one who specialized in "receiving" BUT that section on needs and wants was very easy for me and whenever I taught it in twig it was easy.

THAT one bothered me a lot. I finally cracked that nut (I think) a little while ago. Hint: it has to do with God using the man's vocabulary again. This one is interesting, and I offered to explain it weeks ago. No takers. Want to hear it? I'm limited on time, but I'll be back.

I'll bet you got it soon, like within the 2nd hearing of the class. That just wasn't a difficult idea being taught.

I'm SURE we discussed committee written books 10 years ago.

Me too. Did you ever have a hard time understanding needs and wants parallel? Me neither.

I'm saying God is capable and allowed of condescending to anyone's personal vocabulary. Would you try to forbid Him? Or would you insist on God communicating only with the King's English? I really don't need to know your answer here. Tell God.

I'm saying YOU made an error in labeling that passage in error. If you want to make the case, in the face of what I already stated, but in my book that is not an error. That's language. So far you have not convinced me.

That is not an error. Not in the least. Sorry. God uses VPW's vocabulary there.

That was very easy to understand and get the right idea. I give VPW the poetic license to say it that way. If he liked the word "parallel" there it's because that communicated the message to him. He communicated the idea well to all of us using his vocabulary. We were taught God uses the man's vocabulary to communicate.

I was wrong. Most of the “parallel” usages are still there, but with 2 explanations given in PFAL on pages 19,20: “If we are going to tap the resources for the more abundant life, we must not only know what is available, how to receive it, and what to do with it; but we must also get our needs and wants parallel. If our needs are light and our wants are heavy, we are not balanced. If our wants are light and our needs are heavy, we will never get an answer. When we believe, we get results in prayer if our needs and our wants are equal.” I did not understand where that link was from.

how about "un-loosed" ?

I also can see parallel meaning "in line" or or "pointing in the same direction" or harmonious or ....balanced. Have you ever heard a new student ask what parallel meant there? Not me. I think it was easy for all of us to see what he was saying: don't overshoot with greed; don't undershoot with cheating yourself.

That book was written by committee. I think some chapters had several people working on it. I personally knew a few of them. I lived with two of them.