Mike

I think your the one dreaming, or daydreaming. It looks to me that you are trying to re-invent a wheel that went flat several times here. I suggest you look at the earlier portions of this thread for a quote I posted by Lifted Up on his witnessing two rogue, small, isolated, short-lived, yet massively thick snow storms (or squalls), one in Ohio near HQ and one in Pennsylvania. If you can't find it, I'll re-paste it here.

No, I think the audible voice and what was said was what Dr was referring to there. But I do think your ability to get or take things like this dead wrong is a phenomenon of Biblical proportions.

I told you in the snowstorm thread (why did you not quote it. hmmmm?) that a large amount of time would be involved on your part and you're not willing to invest in it. I choose not to invest my time in your kangaroo courts. Do you want me to drag those conspicuously missing quotes of mine here, or will I have to do it?

I disagree. The key point is in the phrase "absolutely nail" and how that comes about. Absolute is a pretty strong word. Since I didn't agree with the methods by which previous "absolute nailings" were achieved by Raf, I dodged wasting my time by allowing myself to be dragged through a retracing of the sequencing by which those methods did their faulty nailing. I do have the right to dodge being hauled into a kangaroo court, just like I can dodge being hit by a car. Such dodgings, like in the game of dodgeball, reflect virtuous agility and I do it well.

I said that IN A SENSE it was injected into the public domain.

October 1942

Actually, I think they may feel a little shy about that. Do you think they want the court to find out about Stiles, Kenyon, Bullinger, Leonard, etc????? I think NOT! In fact, this was the one last point I was going to make. It looks to me that God had it all injected into the public domain in a sense. TWI technically owns the copyright, but they can't quite enforce it now that the cat is out of the bag. I think God had Dr assemble previous texts just for this reason, to force TWI to back off when it comes to getting in anyone's face over fair use and/or more than fair use of the PFAL writings. I've heard not one word of them going after the grads who digitized the books onto a CD and mass distributed them years ago. I know they know about it because I talked to a high ranking staff member about it some 5 years ago. God in His foreknowledge got those books mass printed, distributed around the world, and then He freed them from the monsters He knew TWI would become.

seaspray, A positively perfect pertinent post! I wonder how many grads are reading that for the first time? It sure seems like someone knew we'd be talking about all this, and tucked that paragraph away in RHST's Introduction to the Appendixes just for us to find in these later days.

I think I did that already, so let's let the record speak for itself. I gotta go to work.

You wrote: "What does offend me somewhat, though, is your constant insistence there must be something wrong with my ability to exercise 'brainpower.'" How can I more politely suggest that I think you missed something?

Not necessarily. If a researcher has ALREADY determined that the text is right from previous research, then current searches can use that previous result to help guide the work. Similarly, if the text has previously been found by a researcher to be faulty, then the methods I suggested would not be used. You're assuming that all research has as its goal finding the text right or wrong. That's not the case with me, and it's not the case with others here. I start out with the assumption that the text is right, and an apparent error needs to be reconciled, so I keep searching until a satiffactory answer is found. Others here start out with the assumption that the text is wrong, and they work it until they think they've demonstrated this by finding an apparent error, and that's where they halt their search. It sounds to me that you've only thought this through from one side. It's like you're too emotionally invested with the idea that the text is wrong, and this prevents you from seeing the other possible side. That possibility offends you so much you don't give it enough time and brainpower to see what I'm talking about.

#1 One method would be meekness. I alluded to this before in my response to Mark in Post #633 when I said "We were shown how unbelieving scholars can read errors into the ancient scriptures by way of their methodology, right? " We were taught this in the class, remember? The assumption must be made before beginning that the text is right. Then you look for the answers on THAT side of the tracks, not on the side that you all are on, assuming that it's full of errors. #2 Another would be being familiar with ALL the places in the writings where the target topic comes up. This takes years, and it must be done with #1 in mind. #3 Word studies - key words that are employed in the target topic need to be defined in terms of how they are used elsewhere WITHIN the PFAL writings, not how they are defined outside the writings. This too takes much time, especially considering we don't have a concordance for the PFAL writings. There are others. I've listed these here many times in years past, but thanks for not seeing them, cuz it gives me a chance to repeat them for newcomers.

Well I agree we're going round and round. Some of that is due to the fact that several people are involved and to some degree each round can be associated with each participant. I think some is due to some not wanting to accept what’s been set forth and trying again and again to ram it out of credence. I'm about done here on this issue. Just a small few points left. I think everyone can see that IF revelation is involved, I have a consistent position. A lot of the discussion seems to center on the copyright issue disproving revelation, but the copyright issue is looked at from the position of non-revelation to begin with. What’s being “proved” has already been assumed. On the matter of strict legality, God tells us to obey the laws of men as much as is possible. But, clearly, His set of laws prevail over man’s in case of a conflict, just like when there’s a conflict between State and Federal laws, and the Feds are constitutionally identified as having the upper hand. Again, Mark, what is a factual error to you can be seen as not at all the case when you use differing methods to read the writings. This shouldn’t be too hard to see. We were shown how unbelieving scholars can read errors into the ancient scriptures by way of their methodology, right? After that I see only one more point to be made. I’ve once posted on this before, so I may go and search for that, rather than re-compose it. It’s an interesting point as to why God would do it in this seemingly convoluted way. It has to do with copyrighting God’s Word and injection into the public domain, and it’s not been brought up here in several years. I’l be looking for it.

I disagree. The key is - appropriately Who is to say what is and is not appropriately credited? In the academic realm and in the market place, the meaning of "appropriately" is fairly well defined. In those settings there are authorities to answer my question as to what is appropriate. But those were not the settings in which we were served that material. It was in the setting of a meal from our Father that we were served good food. The credits were done rather inappropriately if they were to satisfy the academic community, and if the earlier authors were to have brought Dr to court over marketplace infringements, I would not be at all surprised if in that setting he be judged liable. But on the table we were served, in the setting of a spiritual Father with His family, the earlier authors were IMHO appropriately credited... remotely and without distraction. *** ...and if revelation was involved (and I'm betting my life there was) then that would serve as permission... from the ultimate Author. *** And a marketplace side note (AND THIS IS NOT A MINOR POINT): I think every one of those earlier authors (and/or their estates) were more than compensated by all the free publicity they got from Dr's actions. There couldn't have been a better commercial promotional agent for them if they had tried to hire one.

Do some math, "almost fifteen" plus 1942 equals "almost 1957." It could have been any time before 1957. I think it's more likely to be in the late 40's or early 50's from other accounts of Dr Higgins. Don't add words: he didn't say "spoke just like Bullinger wrote." The article says she said he "spoke like Bullinger wrote." The context, the preceding paragraph, which you did not include, was how he was teaching similar findings like the Wednesday crucifixion, not a similar style of writing "just like Bullinger" as you put it. Anyone can find these things if they work what scriptures survived with procedure and care. Similar and independent discoveries happen all the time in science, where procedure and care are employed. *** Now here's a new twist. Everyone supposes that Bullinger, Stiles, Leonard, etc all came up with their material independently and exclusively. Is this a KNOWN fact? How could it be a known fact? I'll be they had their sources and tips, and they too decided not to clutter their writings with all sorts of references. I don't think originality in human thought is as viable a phenomenon as is often thought. I think the idea of originality is a convenience and an abbreviation for a far more complex set of phenomena. This was once taught in the AC, that all new ideas come from God. Anyone remember this?

dmiller, I say the honor goes to the Author of the final written product, and that these writings are useful to us IN SPITE of the flesh failings of vpw. It's what got printed that I think is worth celebrating. It's the contents of the books, not the character of one of the men involved in producing them. If you could see this fine distinction you'd be less upset. You choose.

EXACTLY. I have said this often. I'd say, though, not "fair game for anyone" because they'd need permission from the Author. Why would God do it this way? I can think of lots of reasons. But then again, this is not a new idea to me. Give it time (and objectivity) and you will find reasons too. I want to repeat a paragraph I posted here today because it is something that I consider key here. "All this was above board and common knowledge in the early 70's. It was later lost in the verbal traditions that grew up in TWI that I call the TVTs. It was in the TVTs (Twi Verbal Traditions) that Dr supposedly got "divine dictation" as to what to write. Those later grads who grew up in these traditions (or older grads who had forgotten the earlier originality disclaimers) were dismayed at hearing that Dr's teachers had similar material." The shock and disdain that many express here regarding these trumped up plagiarism charges reflect a theme that I repeatedly come back to: that few paid good attention to what was happening back then. I often point out that many have gotten the wrong ideas as to what the teaching was because many details slipped by them unawares, or were forgotten. This is the case with SO many items. It just keeps coming up over and over.

And BIG it became! And big it still is. So big it thrives to this day as I said before. So big that some devote much time to try and bring it down. Actually, that tape is a cutout from the larger SNS teaching, which did include Acts verses. I mentioned this, but you seemed to miss it. But of course, if he had permission from the Author, then it would be a lot different. Right?

In 1965 the ministry was so small there was no need to obviate. Part of the hard evidence is from that early date. Just to remind you of the details in these two quotes of hard evidence I’ll reproduce them. In Post #252 on this thread I resurrected an old dialog between Oldiesman and dmiller, that may have suffered in the pruning process that had to take place years ago due to the old GreaseSpot server costs and limitations. Here is hard evidence EXHIBIT A First dmiller wrote: Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works, and passed it off as his own. Then oldiesman wrote: dmiller, sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you, and I base my belief on the following: “Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.” Victor Paul Wierwille, 1972 The Way Living In Love Elena Whiteside page 209 The previous statement by VP disproves that he “passed it off as his own.” In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that, there it is, right before your eyes. He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own, but rather saying “lots of the stuff I teach is not original.” If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own, he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books, from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read. ************* And here is hard evidence EXHIBIT B I refer to an old Greasespot thread titled “transcript of a 1972 VPW Sunday night service” found at http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...c=1871&st=0 The title of that thread contains an error. The date should have been posted as 1965. The first post of that thread is a transcript of a middle section of SNS Tape #214 October 17, 1965 titled “Selling Plurality - Acts 4:34.” That middle section was in later decades cut out from that tape and distributed on a cassette tape titled “Light Began to Dawn.” All of the SNS tapes are available in mp3 form on CDs from a distributor on the Internet. The voice behind this posted transcript can be heard by anyone to check the accuracy of the transcript. In that transcript we read Dr saying (with my bold fonts): “And so I'd read the Word, I'd read it, I'd read it. Then I'd work, start looking start working, and as we began working this Word of God, is when light began to dawn. And wonderful things that God did for us, He brought men and women across our paths who came just at the right time to help us in our light; men who had gone so far, but no further. But God brought these men so that we could go further because these men brought light. Men like Rufus Mosely; men like E. Stanley Jones; men like Albert Cliff; men like Star Daley, God brought all of these men and others, many of them, across our pathways, just at the right time to add to this revelation and enable us to walk on the Word and understand it.” Later in the transcript we read: “But there was a hunger in my heart and God said He'd teach me the Word if I'd teach it but I had to study. I had to work. And revelation begins(this is why I know this so well) revelation begins where the senses cease. What you can know by your senses, God expects you to know. He expects you to study the Word that has already been worked out. Men like Bulinger; men like Stevie Ginsberg; God expected me to work those men and others. But He taught me how to get the error out when there was any. And out of that process He taught me then what was truth. And when there was no way of knowing it and I'd researched to my fullest ability, tried to find out. Then if there is no other way, He showed it to me by direct revelation.” ******** I think this proves my assertion that 1. Dr claimed that he was not original in his writing. that Dr was very open about not being original in his writing. 2. He did claim, and in rather clear terms, that his guidance from God was mostly in what to accept and what to reject from his teachers. 3. He did not hide his teachers' work from us at all. **************************** DWBH also forgot to include that Dr claimed on many occasions that he was NOT a scholar. He also OFTEN said that his ministry was by grace, God’s unmerited favor. One such place where Dr put these kinds of things in writing was in the May/June 1979 issue of The Way Magazine. In the Our Times article titled “How the Word Works” he wrote: “... the years of Biblical research I have spent come back to my mind, and joy wells up inside me as I think of what is available to you today through The Way Ministry in book and magazine form, setting forth the accuracy of God’s Word.” You see he’s claiming that the “book and magazine form” setting forth of God’s Word is better than the KJV’s setting forth, as well as any other setting forth of same. This is because God promised to teach him how to do this as posted above. In that same article he continues (with my bold fonts): “This research took me years to work out, and now you can see the depth of it in just a few short hours of reading. Any person who works this material will have a fantastic opportunity to see how the Word works.” Notice he says “work out” and not "originate" or “conjure up from scratch.” He worked it out from the available working that had gone on before him, as he admitted above in my posting here. He continues: “I have had the opportunity over the years to see much of how God’s Word works. When I speak of research among our believers, I do not mean, primarily, discovering something new in the Bible. I mean establishing in your heart the wonderful truths of God’s Word--to the end that these truths are your own; you can understand them, you have mastered them.” He often told us this, that research was not to be so original as it was to be establishing, a REesearching as he defined if for us. Those of us who forgot this were later dismayed. This same idea of REesearching was repeated in his very last Way Magazine article in 1985, and probably missed or forgotten by most grads. He continues: “Someone who has been exposed to the Word for only a short while (such as a new grad of the foundational class on Power for Abundant Living) perhaps could not do as much with it as I could, but this is simply because of time. Any individual can work the Word of God and understand it.” That is the Word of God as set forth in “book and magazine form.” He continues (with my bold fonts): “I have never said that I am a Bible scholar; all I know is that I love God, I love His Word and I want to help people. I do know something about God’s Word, because I’ve been in that field for quite a few years, but I always feel humbled when I come to the Word, because I know its magnified greatness.” In this very same article, a little later he brings up some more pertinent items: “The best way for me to do this type of work is privately. I need to be alone in my office away from interruptions and people’s questions where I can get into the depth of it. This is the way I worked God’s Word when I discovered the truth that Jesus Christ was crucified on a Wednesday and raised on Saturday. Finding truths like this made me ‘stand out like a sore thumb’ in so-called Christendom. “For almost fifteen years, no one thanked me for what I taught. People did not accept much of my heart and life. When I shared with them what I had found in God’s Word, they would shout, “Heresy!” But Dr. E. E. Higgins told me one night after I taught at the LaSalle Hotel in Chicago that I taught like Bullinger wrote. Then she took me up to her office in the hotel and gave me her copy of How to Enjoy the Bible. Back in the early 1900’s, Bullinger had found and seen many of the things in the Word that I was finding. Reading his book was like getting a drink of cool water from a desert oasis. I still have a great respect and love for the work of E. W. Bullinger, which will stand as a monument until the return of Christ.”

Why are you having such a difficult time with this? The hard evidence is the book "The Way Living in Love" published in 1972, and the SNS tape #214 from October 17, 1965. In this hard evidence we see Dr claiming that he was not original in his writing. I had posted to DWBH: "I think you're leaving out a few things. At that time in the early 70's Dr was very open about not being original in his writing..." I went on to add: "I myself heard him (Dr) disclaim originality several times back then. ...He did claim, and in rather clear terms, that his guidance from God was mostly in what to accept and what to reject from his teachers. He did not hide his teachers' work from us at all, like your "secret compartment" paragraph might to some uninformed readers seem to be alluding to." My hard evidence OF THESE EARLY DISCLAIMERS is found in the two quotes.

Read what I wrote at the beginning of Post #587. I cited two quotes that have been posted here.

I prefer to leave judgments like that to SNL Church Ladies.