Mike

That's getting a little complicated. I am wondering how many levels there were in pre-publication. It looks to me that the printed books that were shipped are NOT the originals, but very close. In the class we were taught how to ATTEMPT to work back to the originals where the existing texts were EXTREMELY corrupted over many centuries. Using those exact same techniques, a document like a printed PFAL book is VERY close to the original, and not many years separate. One of the editors is still alive today. The flaws are trivial and are not attitude based like the in the ancient scriptures. had

Yikes! I thought everyone would be out playing right now at the beach or in the snow. I thought I could wrap up a few unanswered posts (tangents again, Rocky) and go off line to search out my earlier manifesto attempts. But instead, there's a constant flurry of posts right now keeping me chained to my urge to respond. I may just have to hit "off" switch and run.

I've "admitted" this about a thousand times, at least a hundred in the past two months. I've said it from every conceivable angle. If this is new to you, then PLEASE start all over with reading my posts, now that you understand my MAIN position. People are so tense or uptight about me they can't read what I write very well. I'm waiting for calm. *** You wrote: "On what evidence do you base this opinion?" Is this a joke? It's a coming full circle back to the original topic of this thread. I promised Rocky that I'd back off in answering this question so I can write my manifesto, or a precursor to it, off line. I'll NEVER get off line this way. You'll have to wait for this, or go back and re-read my posts. I think you'll find my answer there several times over.

BTW, anyone who comfortably crosses out a word in their KJV and puts the correction in the margin KNOWS that the KJV is devoid of authority. A good starting suggestion, sure, but not the last word. The same can be said of all other existing manuscripts.

With all this clarification of my position, maybe re-visiting some of my posts and ideas would produce results differing from what we have currently.

Thank you much, as well. I know what I am talking is SO far from the norm that it's not easy to take in, especially with details. It is very difficult for me to get across a detailed understand of what my position is. I constantly see people arguing with positions I do not support. Some of this difficulty is because I have no template to fall back on. I'm blazing my own trail, in some ways. But I also kn ow it's hard for people to take it in accurately, because it is SO far from the norm.

AGAIN, I'm most happy to clarify. But again, it’s at variance with my decision back off to write a more full manifesto. This key phrase “the PFAL collaterals have replaced the Bible” is ambiguous without some context, because the term “the Bible” is so highly ambiguous. How can “the Bible” be used as an accurate ruling device? Which Bible? Which Critical Greek Text? Which translation? Which version? In addition to minute differences in some individual words, whole attitudes on things like sin and trinity get impressed into texts in subtle ways. There hasn’t been a “the Bible” for PFAL to replace. What most people mean when they say “the Bible” is the abstract contents of the original ancient scriptures in the language of those originally addressed, and that scholars are constantly getting closer and closer to. Like VPW in 1942, I have given up on that scholarly project ever coming to the needed accuracy. The reason is I believe the adversary’s scrambling of the originals in the earliest copies was of supernatural intelligence, and that NO HUMAN SCHOLARS can ever unscramble it. Not even all the kings horses and all the kings men can match wits with the devil. The originals are gone, gone, gone. What we have left is devoid of authority. It’s THAT set of modern documents (especially translations and version) that PFAL replaces in the sense that something of zero authority is replaced with something substantial, again. *** There are some contexts where VPW uses the term “the Bible” in the usual way, as I described above. But as PFAL progresses in understanding, what I see are contexts where VPW uses the term “the Bible” to mean the written Word of God. As PFAL’s publishing progressed in time, VPW’s use of “the Bible” refers to the collaterals. The greatest secret in the world today is that “the Bible” (the finished PFAL writings) is the revealed (written) Word of God. Many people believe that “the Bible” (in the usual sense) is the Word of God, but that belief is not in an actual text, not in a written text, but in an abstract goal of reconstructing scholars. THAT’s not the greatest secret in the world. The big secret is that the Author has actually given us another text, this time in English. The official motto of the Way Corps was “It is written.” I ask WHERE is it written, and in what language?

Good question. The way I've handled that (without getting too detailed here) is the collaterals are my only rule on faith and practice. I use them to rule on things I hear in life, and some things I accept on that basis. The totally unreferenced sections of my KJV serves me as background information for the collaterals. I place them on a lower priority in my study scheduling. I must put SOMETHING on lower priorities. Those sections are useful, but not for steering in tough waters. They served as the background info for VPW when he wrote, and they serve me that way too when I read sections that are close by. They are open to re-interpretations, and can’t serve as a ruler like the collaterals do.

No. It's not correct, but THANKS for ASKING! This is a very important point to have clear. I am SOOOO glad you asked. I'll again break my diminished posting promise (a little) to answer this quickly. I believe the originals were God-breathed. However, I also believe the 3rd Century copies of copies of copies of the originals (which are all we have) are not God-breathed. The originals were lost and most probably destroyed. The originals of Paul’s Epistles were inherited by an unthankful church in the 1st Century. Peter’s dying last words are to this effect. Paul was shamed and imprisoned and all his top leadership had left him by the time he wrote II Timothy. Due diligence in copying and preserving Paul’s the originals was at a low ebb even before he died. Spiritually the church had rejected God’s guidance and didn’t care enough to copy carefully. The copying process was also severely hampered by great persecutions that started around the same time. Sometimes they deliberately forged and altered sections of their copies. This sloppy copying was the reason for inventing the Critical Greek Texts in the 16th Century. A similar process happened in Moses’ day. The Word written in the stars became corrupt in how people passed on the skills for reading them. At some point God abandoned the useless format of the stars and had Moses compile what was needed into written form. By 1942 VPW figured it out that there was zero authority that the ancient scriptures and their translations could wield. He saw that to work back to the quality of the originals, and then to work on a God-breathed translation were two very impossible tasks and he gave up. I believe that like the Word in the stars, God abandoned the originals’ format and had VPW compile what was needed from the ancient scriptures, and the format evolved into what looks like a set of conventional commentaries. God-breathed English commentaries might be a very loose translation of what I believe the collaterals are, but I fully know that VPW would not like my use of the word “commentary” here.

Of course. I've done the same with phone calls if I'm brainstorming a detailed topic. I record my voice with a regular microphone, and my partner's voice goes unrecorded. I get all the memory pegs that the tape can provide. It's much more serious, like criminal felony, to record someone without permission in some States.

More tangents. More me breaking my promise to cool it on posting on this thread. LOL. I said I was examining my motives for returning here. I don't think your guess of seeking approval is on target at all. The reason I've tried to work with your suggestions is they are good, and I was thinking along those lines also. I was trying too write my "manifesto" in the fly, in sections, as responses within larger dialogs with you folks. That comes across as toying and delaying. So I have to give it up if It aint workin. Besides, that's how civil intelligent conversations go. I don’t see this TWI mystery as having been totally cracked. Not at all. There’s plenty more to learn. Being honest and forthright, I even thought I could use some of the text in the “proof” dialog as boilerplate in a future book on surety and proof in science. As for approval, I’ve weathered storms of disapproval here. I’m curious why you ask that. It sounds a little like a stealthy psychology probe, or tangential bait.

For whichever questions still apply, I'd love to hear responses. One great disadvantage I have is not knowing most of you and your backgrounds and your current positions. A few I do. Are you current, recent folks in the forum that has personal introductions? I should read up on that if so. BTW, having your picture icon HELPS a lot in remembering who said what.

Oh WAIT! One last point. I want to ask a few questions (not toying). Those of you who believe the original Bible scriptures were God-breathed: How do you prove that to yourself and how do you prove that to others? Can you see yourself able to prove that on this board in a thread? How do you feel about English translations and their being “as” God-breathed as the ancient language originals? I’d like to hear what you all feel about these things. They are DIRECTLY related to the challenge put to me to “prove” that PFAL is God-breathed. Maybe in the Doctrinal Forum?

The process of making my case(s) can be lengthy and complex. One example is the "proof" for this thread. It entails many side discussions, and for many reasons. Some I insist on; some others insist on. I was not toying earlier here when I asked for “why want a proof?” and “give me an example of something proved.” I am genuinely interested in the process of proofs, from Physics to Philosophy. I investigate what satisfies people when they present their theories on the mirror riddle. The subject of surety is one I like to brainstorm on with people, but few people pay much attention to such things. In Starbucks I can talk to anyone about the mirror riddle, but surety as a subject in itself is usually beyond most people I can strike up a conversation with. Here I expect to find many more takers. There were many, many exotic topics that came up in the ministry that I am not sure on, regarding both ministry history and spiritual matters. One example is originality. That is a FASCINATING topic. I’m still learning a lot there. I know many people here have been pondering it (how deeply?) for many years now. Not many Starbucks people think about that topic either. I am also constantly picking up new details on ministry history here, as well as depositing new details to ministry history here. One of the most recent ones is how the PFAL’77 plans to replace the 1968 film class were scuttled a full week BEFORE the beginning of PFAL’77, and not after it started, as was erroneously reported here. I offered plenty of room to disprove me (many witnesses) and tape evidence from the Sunday Service one day before PFAL’77 began that reflected what I witnessed.

I suggest a study be done of the Princeton Theological Seminary's non-shabbiness. Look at this from Wikipedia: "Princeton Seminary has long been influential in theological studies, with many leading biblical scholars, theologians, and clergy among its faculty and alumni. In addition, it operates one of the largest theological libraries in the world and maintains a number of special collections,..."

Relevant to So_crates post.

It was OFTEN in the news, and that's why I had heard of it. Not selling it.

Anyone who knows Research Geek will agree that he did not purposely skew his report by saying there were "a number" of students who graduated with him. He was NOT trying to hide a small number by that comment. If it were three he would have said it was a very small number. I believe RG meant there was a "normal" number for a small school, like a room full or half full.

So_crates, I'm not sure which Princeton RG was referring to. Whenever I heard in the old days that VPW went to Princeton, I always flashed on “Princeton Theological Seminary” and not on PrincetonUniversity. Having zero interest in the subject, the only reason my memory flashed on that name was because it was FAMOUS, and maybe even more famous than PrincetonUniversity, in some eyes. A quick check at Wikipedia just now confirms my suspicion: the place is NOT TOO SHABBY!

Sounds like he was imitating Craig. A lot of new Corps would do that, even to the point of sporting a mustache similar to his at one time. I looked forward to them maturing, but it didn't happen.

If you were a monolithic "us" you'd have a point. But you're not. Even with the active posters there is a spread to the bell curve on "your" position. But there are many more less active posters and potentially many more non-posting readers who are less settled in their positions. I may run across some new information here, but have much more info you and almost all the others have never seen. Research Geeks post from 2002 is just one recent example of that. Did you see it? On the other thread?

I agree. It went too far.