Mike

No, WW, the bet concerns the God-breathed status of the PFAL writings, not the plagiarism charges. If they are of God, then all plagiarism is off. It doesn't work in reverse, though. You can't logically charge plagiarism and then say that proves the writings are NOT God-breathed. To charge plagiarism you must first assume they are NOT God-breathed, so if that assumption is wrong so are the charges. If they are God-breathed, that negates the ownership of the words as you presently perceive it, and hence the charges are void. *** Raf, since you insist on telling God what He can and can't do then why would you even want to BE in a heaven where you CAN'T be the one in charge?

I've only asserted that academic style footnotes would be a distraction to new students in the more elementary books. I was not distracted by JCOP footnotes. In my very early years (and especially early months) in the Word I would have been distracted, if "The Bible Tells Me So" had been needlessly clogged with footnotes. I still am glad footnotes are not in that book and the others. This whole thing of insisting that standards of the academic and commercial markets be applied to the Way of a Father with His family is stupid, inefficient, and failing to recognize the TRUE owner of the ideas, the words, the message, and the logos. God gave revelation to Styles, Bullinger, Leonard, and many others who taught Dr and God gave Dr the revelation as to how to piece it all together for us. I see the whole process as a team effort on the spiritual level, which is eternal. On the human level, which is collapsing to nothingness along with all the second heaven and earth, it’s not worth even bothering with trying to figure it out and dispense justice as a vigilante court for writers who didn’t even ask for help. Besides, who here has even tried to see where Styles got his material from, where Kenyon got his? Anyone? It may have been a similar process as Dr used, stretching back centuries. God is the owner of all truth. All words that explain and declare God accurately belong to Him. If this is not true, what I just stated, then all the plagiarism charges are valid. HOWEVER, if PFAL and it’s HUMAN sourced elements are ultimately of and from God, then there are a lot of people here who will be answering to charges themselves some day. Place your bets knowing the EVERYTHING is riding on it.

Since WW so diligently wanted to thoroughly explore this sub-topic, for which I just thanked him, I thought it would also be nice to mention that these things have been discussed here before. The 1982 SNS tape where Dr says that his 1967/71 statement of being confident that we could get back to the originals with spiritual authoritativeness was basically accomplished was discussed in a thread titled “News Flash! LCM Never Installed Spiritual Leader of The Way!” and can be found at: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...topic=1620&st=0 There are a number of other surprises on that tape that should bring some relief to those who have been so perplexed as to why Dr appointed Craig to be president of TWI. It’s also noteworthy to see that this announcement came at the 40th anniversary of Dr being appointed God’s spokesman. *** Then, the total fulfillment of Dr’s confident expectations that we could get back to the original can be seen in Dr’s very last teaching where he TWICE tells us in those very few dying last words that we should master the FINISHED writings that are part of PFAL. Watching the times over a ten year span from 1975 to 1985 we can see Dr slowly urging more and more of us (and with stronger and stronger wording) to master the PFAL writings as they were being published. When they were finally completed in 1985 he tells all of us, point blank, to master that complete set of God’s revelations to us. This discussion can be found in the thread titled “Dr's Last Teaching - LOST for 17 Years!” and it is located here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=4226 *** Templelady, don’t worry about me, it’s only a flesh wound. It is my privilege to become slightly bloodied (in your eyes) as I make these things known, very much against the will of the adversary who’s hid them for years, and very much in line with the heart of the True God.

I’ve often mentioned that we need to WATCH THE TIMES! To view Dr’s writings as occurring at one static time in history is to miss the development of a HUGE story. It’s the story of God making more and more available to us. Unfortunately, most of us OLGs had pretty well tuned Dr out by the time the exciting things were coming down in the very early 80’s. Thank you WW, for giving me the opportunity to mention all this again. With repetition, some of these things may start sticking in the attention and focus of readers here. For most, these are the first times to ever hear such wonderful things of God’s blessings to us through the PFAL writings He inspired in Dr and his editors.

WW, As you posted, Dr wrote on page 128 in the PFAL book: “When we get back to that original, God-breathed Word - which I am confident we can - then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the prophets of old, 'Thus saith the Lord.'” Then you wrote: “That's vpw himself, pg-128 of the Orange Book. He, for one, thinks that this is an attainable goal. Plus, this was in the Orange Book, which a few people credit with Divine Inspiration.” Yes, he did think it attainable in 1967 when he first spoke those words in the film class and then in 1971 when the PFAL book was published. His statement indicates that there was a problem at that time, and that the problem was not having the accurate Word. This problem has a SMALL component in the ancient texts. I admit the tatterations are small. But there are also components of this problem involving translations which are LARGE, and then with putting it all together MINUS the cultural/religious bias we’re all saddled with from birth, which is HUGE. In the late 60’s and early 70’s Dr states that the problem exists, but that it was solvable. How? Notice the “we” in his page 128 quote. Getting back to the originals and solving this three pronged problem involves having Dr included. Why? Because he was appointed by God to be the man to help “us” so that “we” could get back to the original understanding accurately. This is the spiritual authoritativeness I referred to in previous posts and to which Dr refers when he said “say with all the authority of the prophets of old.” The sense knowledge task of getting back to the original understanding is daunting when the adversary is seen as the instigator of the problem. It’s a SUPERNATURAL problem and no natural solutions will get us back there. No academic inquiry can thwart the devil’s power to subvert the Word. Only God can get us over the hump and back to the originals. It takes revelation to REALLY know which ancient fragments are to be trusted, how to translate them, and how to integrate them into our thinking. God selected Dr as the man to receive that revelation and then pass it on to us. Without his contribution we cannot get back. *** In 1982, a decade after writing that page 128 in the PFAL book, Dr announced that the problem HAD BEEN SOLVED basically, and that we had obtained the Word. The first two obstacles had been basically overcome, and only the last remained. Yes, Dr said we could get back to the originals in 1971, and then 1982 he announced that the job was almost totally done. Three years later he told us all to master the end-product of all that work, to master the written forms of PFAL. Hardly anyone heard Dr’s announcement of the successful getting back to what God wanted us to have. It was on a SNS tape of Craig’s Installation and it’s timing was either a minute or two before or after placing the mantle on Craig. This announcement was either the last one of Dr’s as president or the first one in Craig’s new ministry. No one really noticed, but it’s still there on the tape. When the getting back to the originals was totally complete and we were told to “go at it” and master the collaterals, but Dr’s statements were ignored and the entire teaching, his last, was lost to most grads. Yes, WordWolf, Dr did say we could get back, and then ten years later he said that we did get back, but all ignored it and walked away from the solution provided by God. Only now are people slowly hearing these things.

WW, You wrote: "The vast majority of the texts DO agree with each other- compare any 2 interlinears for evidence. Sheesh, I did that back in twi..." All you need is one interlinear that is footnoted to show many texts. Mine has the Stevens text as a base, and the footnotes document all the deviations that about ten other texts take from it. EVERY PAGE is littered with footnotes of deviations... and these are in the CLEANED UP versions of the tattered remnants. We were taught that if ONE WORD is changed we no longer have THE Word of God. I believe that. I saw how Eve didn't believe that, and succumbed to a huge lie as a result. *** Lots of people are still waiting for some examples of the innovations in textual studies you alluded to. Are you balking due to the innovations having a pointy headed overintellectual inapplicability to our spiritual life?

Here's some evidence: the existence of the critical texts. WHY the critical texts? Why did Stevens and then all the others, starting in 1550, take on such projects? Why did they need to criticize the most ancient manuscripts? Because they saw a need. They saw the tattered remnants needed cleaning up. Even still, they failed to even agree with each other (see interlinear footnotes for evidence), let alone get an spiritually authoritative end product. And a spiritually authoritative end product would need more than angels to declare it, because there are false angels to reckon with. Without the Spirit of God working in a man of God there's nothing authoritative whatsoever. Theologians can talk about God, but can they HEAR Him? You may have forgotten your previous bluff but I didn't. What do you mean by these words of yours (the audience is waiting): "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."

WW, You wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago." I've heard your BS before about some "wonderful" discoveries regarding ancient texts and now you come out with it again. I decline your offer for a trade and I repeat my BS call on your assertion that there have been "major" breakthroughs in textual studies. Your offer is more a dare and I see no payoff for me to put my time into it. I don't need your deal to say "BS!" Thread topic: the bottom line remains that we don't have the originals and there are such a huge number of discrepancies from the sloppy copying of the originals that the critical texts were a necessity to wade through all the TATTERED REMNANTS. And then, even after a dozen critical texts are produced EVEN THEY have inconsistencies as anyone with an interlinear can see by looking at all the footnotes. There's even no proof that ANY ONE of the critical texts have it right for any one passage. I don't need your deals to call your bluff. You offered to ALL the readers here a bluff and I called you on it. NO DEAL. Even if the originals were discovered in a cave tomorrow what proof could there be that they were said originals? How would anyone even get a strong hunch that they were the originals? I say BS because you have no wonderful discoveries to report. Thread topic: Biblical text research is a huge pile of opinions, guesses, theories, sense knowledge workings, and devilish interferences, just like it was 50 years ago and 100 years ago. There's NOTHING spiritually authoritative in that field. It can be useful for verification at times for someone who does already have some spiritual insights, but it's not what it's members tout it to be. I'm out of the deal, WW. Never was in in the first place. Now to all the folks at home, tell THEM what the great discoveries are and I'll look the other way. Tell THEM what you meant when you wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."

WW, You wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago." BS!

WW, Since you have so much to contribute compared than lowly me, how about getting specific? You wrote: "the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago." Like WHAT? Please name five such things and then discuss one. I'd like to see what wonderful things the egg heads have discovered for us lowly followers.

Those with any memories of the "Mike Wars" will remember the phrase "tattered remnants" well.

Does anyone hear the phrase "tattered remnants" being faintly whispered in the wind?

Oak, It's LIKE filibustering, to use the weaker figure of speech, simile. To say that it IS filibustering is to use the stronger figure, metaphor. In neither case are ALL the elements in line. The objections I have are in line with the objections to filibustering: it's naked hindrance. It's an opposition to the decent presentation of ideas. It's like singing the Star Spangled Banner to drown out a soap box exercise of free speech. I, however, DID laugh out loud at your notation of the thread title, but doojable just couldn't have known.

I see at least ten topics here I'd love to have the time to dispatch with, but doojable's post deserves the most time, in my opinion. *** Since this is on topic, and not on me: dmiller, You wrote: "Did docvic ever say it's the Orange, Blue, or Green book like you do????" I don't even have to be awake to answer this. Yes. He said it in his last teaching when he said that the object of our mastery efforts should be those VERY books... and a few more. This was addressed to top leadership, with some application to all born again believers. He also said it in the 1979 AC segment #5, addressed to AC students and grads, with these words: "I have set for our people, and it's set in the book on 'Receiving the Holy Spirit Today,' and people, when you reach the Advanced Class, you ought to be able almost to quote this line for line. You should have mastered this book by the time you get to the Advanced Class. If you haven't, you better get busy and do it - work it to where you understand the Word of God in every facet, in every way of it's utilization regarding the holy spirit field - all of them, you must know this book, in and out. But I've discovered as I've worked among my people, and even all the grads of the Advanced Class, there still are areas where we got to push ourselves." He also said it at Sound Out '84 that younger believers should think about mastering JCOP and JCPS, and JCNG. I think, those three are mentioned, but I'm too tired to check the tape or my notes. He also said it in his second to the last teaching, "The Hope," that we should think about mastering ADAN. He also strongly hinted at it to the Early Corps in the mid 70's about RHST mastery, later distributed in Univ of Life Ephesians #17. Thank you, dmiller. Your question gave me the opportunity to post these references again, after posting them about a dozen times each. Don't they sound familiar by now? Notice that these all occur in the later stages of Dr's ministry, when upper leadership had first tuned him out in the late 70's and spreading to everyone by the mid 80's. *** The shotgun approach to hitting me with vast quantities of subjects demanding responses is really getting ridiculous. For ww to do this alone is bad enough, but for all of you to barrage me with challenges is wasting all your time and mine. This is filibustering at it's worst, and is rotten to the core. It's nothing but the prevention of action through deliberate abuse within the rules. It resembles TWI strategies at their worst. Some of you could make very "respectable" lawyers and great incomes prostituting your intellects and QWERTY skills for TWI-like clients trying to use the letter of the law to circumvent intent of the law. . . In the US Senate they call it filibustering. I'd suggest to WW that he select out of all his objections the one most worthy of all of our time, both his and mine and the rest of us. Same to the rest of you. Form a committee and select some FEW items we can get into in detail. Otherwise I'll just ignore you all and have a private discussion with doojable right in front of you all. Or she and I could resort to PMs if you all insist on misbehaving any more. *** There are a few exceptions to this complaint of mine, like oldiesman, and a few others. Allan, are you blocking my e-mails AND my PMs to you? I can't get a response from you. *** Now, does anyone see any ONE topic addressed to me on these many pages of this one thread worth me interrupting my sleep and interrupting my composing of my response to doojable to deal with? If so I'd be happy to judge it's overall merits and spiritual profit, and it it fails I'll "thumbs down" it with a righteous and deliberate DODGE, which is simply a rhetorical and elegant usage of the "ignore" feature in every respect.

doojable, It's nice to see when someone spends the time to compose their thoughts like you do. I'll attempt to answer you when time allows. It's just very scarce now, and when I do have time I'm pretty tired... too tired to write. This is the rush season for my business, but it will end a few weeks after Christmas.

WW, All of a sudden context becomes important to you? I quote from cited pages we all (OLGs) had in our hands numerous times, and the wise among us still have in our libraries, and you are looking for context from me. When you quote me you seem to have no regard for saving my context and/or displaying it for all, even though it's very difficult and/or time consuming to impossible for readers to find it. I sense a double standard.

E-Gads! I run out of rare holiday season posting time and leave this thread and I'm STILL a topic of conversation above the thread's stated topic! Oh! ...for the time required to deal with all these loose ends and inaccuracies. Just to set one item straight: (1) On page 34 of TNDC Dr claims that "every word I have written to you is true." Who is the "you" here? It's his students of PFAL. A careful scrutiny of every word on page 116 of TNDC will yield similar results. (2) In his last teaching Dr urges us to master the written materials that come with the class. Every new student received a one-year subscription to the Way Magazine, and the masthead of the magazine says it's "The Magazine of Power for Abundant Living." (3) In his May/June 1979 Our Times article Dr explains that we were given the accuracy of God's Word "in book and magazine form." From these three points I see God's 1942 promise ultimate unfolding to us in "book and magazine form." God taught Dr and Dr taught us, according to that promise, and Dr's ultimate teaching of these revelations TO US GRADS is in his books and magazine articles. Unfortunately, most of us OLGs tuned out Dr quite some time before this ultimate unfolding was finished, before the last articles and books were written. Most of us thought we had finished receiving the major benefits of PFAL from his verbal teachings and we relatively ignored the written forms, having spent some time with them much earlier. Remember, though, that according to page 83 of PFAL, "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed..." It's just SOME of what he wrote that is necessarily God-breathed, and it's what he wrote TO US. This is the one item I had time to work on this evening. Maybe after the holiday rush is over in mid January I'll have more time to deal with other items.

oldiesman, If I had the time, and found myself in a bad mood I might very well do that, but what would be the gain? I can answer each and every one of WW's jabs, but why bother? He's out to lunch and I think it would energize him more. What about the abuse angle, though, the suppression of my right to speak through filibustering? Do you think it's right for WW to carry on like that? What do you think would really happen to me if I did that to someone else? ****** Garth, You're right about one thing. There's no changing my mind. But thanks also for expressing the obvious, that WW's loosing it. Coming from an arch-adversary of mine like you it speaks volumes. Maybe you or some others can approach WW in PMs to calm him down. Surely no one can think he's using his time wisely, let alone Paw's hard drive space, which he accuses me of wasting. ****** Raf wrote: "VPW's character doesn't disqualify his writings from being God-breathed. VPW's writings disqualify his writings from being God-breathed." This is a good point Raf makes and is the same one that I've been making all along, in the face of WW's barrage, regarding David. It's too bad he has his settings adjusted to ignore my posts. Maybe WW will spoon feed it to him in his filibustering. Does everyone see what Raf has said? I bold fonted the first line because it's important. He is agreeing with me that God can sort through the various weaknesses of any man and still get His work done, utilizing well that man's services when he is in fellowship, and even when he is not. This is a MAJOR point I have been hammering at for years here and here is Raf agreeing with me. *** The second line in Raf's post is where we part company. I contend that with the METHODS Raf has chosen to study Dr's writings he disqualifies himself to be an accurate viewer of said writings, and cannot judge if they are God-breathed or not. Raf starts out by assuming they are not God-breathed, and then "proves" it. When Raf finds an apparent contradiction that seems to stand up to HIS methods of scrutiny, he STOPS the investigation and celebrates. When I find an apparent contradiction I celebrate the fact that if I CONTINUE investigating I may soon discover an error in my thinking that will be cleared up as I look deeper into the matter. If anyone here thinks that the reports we often hear at GSC of Dr's character disqualify him from being able to transmit God's revelations to us in PFAL, please debate that issue with Raf sometime, ok? And please say "Hi" to him for me while your at it, too. ****** WW, Do you agree with Raf's first line? If I had written "VPW's character doesn't disqualify his writings from being God-breathed," would you hold your peace or jump all over me with several screens of posting. ****** Hey rascal, do you agree with Raf? How about you others who seem to love posting on Dr's supposed sin and how he therefore couldn't get revelation like he claimed?

To the patient readers of this and other threads I have a request. If you think it's wrong for WW to filibuster like this, please say so. How may wrongs at TWI did you not speak up against and now regret it? Now's your chance to stand up against abuses. Some of you have said so in PMs and I'd like to see who else thinks this kind of suppressing of what I have to say is wrong. WW is not engaging in any kind of civil discourse, but is only interested in snuffing out my point of view. Aren't we very tired of seeing that? Does anyone care about the free discourse of ideas or are we lulled back into complacency if it's only someone else who is being attacked? I'm asking for people with character to step forth. Of course, we all know that if I did this kind of smother job to any other poster here all hell would break loose, right? I offer this, again, if any of you see an actual question, point, or challenge in this huge set of posts by WW, please isolate it and repeat it for me. I'd love to discuss any of these matters in public or in PMs with any interested grads. The entire set of my posts is available. I have a set, and I suspect Pawtucket has a set. I doubt if he threw away the pruned threads. Maybe we can restore them at some time so people can see if WW is lying or not.

I am trying to do TWI-1 correctly and completely. From the record I see that we never quite finished the class. Dr did teach that nothing works when out of fellowship, but he also taught that getting back into fellowship is not NEARLY as difficult as the RCs taught us. The "act of perfect contrition" was taught by the RC as very difficult, but that is wrong. Jesus taught that forgiveness was easy and abundant, using a figure of speech like 70 times 7 times abundant. I can see how OPERATING revelation would go much better if the FULLNESS of fellowship was cultivated. But there also is phenomena where God initiates the revelation in spite of a man's being "crookeder than a dog's hind legs." Remember the account of Balaam and the exquisite revelation he got while attempting to prophesy against God's people for hire? Dr said he had no idea how that worked but that it did. When you think on it, we all commit the greatest sin by breaking the greatest commandment, yet no one seems to get bent out of shape by that sin. We attach degrees of evil to sin that reflects our flesh point of view and how much we think it can hurt us and others at that time in history. Then fads change and we shift our perspective on which sins are the most evil, still missing the impact of the greatest sin. Remember that Dr admitted in a big way that he failed to be the man he KNEW (by revelation) to be. I do not revere Dr's sin nor his person. I am thankful all that he got taught what he put into print and most of what got on tape. It saved my life and much more, and not just me. Remember also that Dr FREQUENTLY said that his ministry was totally by grace. That means more now, doesn't it? I am thankful to God that he worked SOMETHING out with Dr to teach us what we needed then, and even more the books that we need even more now. When broken cisterns run dry, there's a huge amount of goodies to be re-discovered and re-worked in the written form of PFAL. Thank you, doojable, for having a good civil discussion with me here. I greatly appreciate it. I wish all posters were as civil as you. P.S. The phone number thing was not to promote parlor tricks, but to indicate specificity and precision. I saw a lot of B.S. revelation in the later years, and I saw no one getting revelation that specific and detailed that could be checked out later as accurate or not.

WW, Would you like to see more early posts of mine that discredit what you said about me and divine dictation? There's an abundance of them out there. I have often reported that the human sources Dr drew from were sometimes credited by him as having received some revelation in the deal. That's pretty much the opposite of divine dictation, more where those human sources did the dictation of what they got from Father. *** The reason I challenged you to produce context is to prove to all that you didn't save that context, thinking it unimportant, even though you did save the quirky lines. What's important to you is not what I intend to say and do say, it's what it sounds like I say. Discrediting me is your only goal in this matter, not understanding my heart and the content of my posting. If you care about the facts, start saving the context. If you care to get my position correct why not do a little research of what is still available before you shot from the hip with a falsehood? Do you care about truth or only influence? *** When I write a quirky line it could be a figure of speech, which is not limited to but does includes humor, OR it could be literal. I have an admittedly extreme position, which means that some things I literally hold will sound quirky to the uninitiated. My extreme position was selected only because of the extreme evidence I had seen. *** When I fail to respond to you please assume that it's because I don't want to waste the time. If I were expected to respond to all your objections then that would be a good way to shut me up, wouldn't it. All you'd have to do to slow me down considerably is throw a lot of garbage at me and see how long it takes for me to clean it all up. No thanks. You will have to account for every idle word.

P.S. If it wasn't recorded that would drop it a notch in credibility. I place Dr's privately spoken, non-recorded words at the bottom of the credibility spectrum and his printed words at the top. It's my understanding he felt the same way. Many people I've talked to rate his words the opposite way, rejecting his printed words as not worth mastering, and cherishing his private words to them as a status symbol. This is not an accusation at you, just a general observation.

doojable, No, no. It's not that I don't take your word for it. I believe that SOMETHING took place roughly as you stated. I've heard it from others too. It's the accurate details I am interested in. So far no one has much when it comes to ALL the important details and accurately, starting with the date. I don't doubt your character, it's just human memory that I know is flimsy at times, especially after 20 years. So far everything I've heard for years on "re-working" PFAL" is very flimsy when it comes to that word meaning "junk PFAL and start all over with new materials." Re-work fits very well if it means revamp our mental pictures by returning to the original print version and mastering it. It MAY be that Geer did just that and that's why Dr praised him. LATER, one and two years after Dr's death, I know Geer junked the written record on faith by contradicting it and leading others to abandon PFAL instead of mastering it. But before Dr's death he may have obeyed and lined up what Dr is abundantly on record saying about mastering the collaterals. Do you remember Geer's teaching, at that time before Dr's death, well enough to say if it contradicted the collaterals? Then again, you'd have had to have KNOWN the collaterals' position on that to have spotted any contradiction. I know you have stated that you did a lot of study, like many of us did, but I know that the mood of the times was NOT to look at all the fine details in the collaterals as we studied them, but to focus on what they altered and fixed and augmented in the KJV. We never even DREAMED of doing any word studies on the PFAL texts then because none of us suspected that was important, even though Dr hinted that we should twice. This "re-work" thing has bugged me for 20 years, because no one can pinpoint the pertinent details, starting with the date. How about an approximate date?

doojable, I brought up the Uriah family to illustrate a case similar to your statements about leaving a man of God who screws up. Regardless of their feelings against David the RIGHT thing for them to do was to accept the authority and revelations God gave to David in spite of their feelings. God still worked with David in spite of his sin and He expected all Israel to do the same. John Scheonheit wrote a Way Magazine article on this situation in the early 80's. I'm quite sure everyone knew about David's sin, especially after he was confronted on it. Bathsheba knew who knocked her up, and we are asked by a sloppy researcher here that after getting pregnant AND after hearing of Uriah's death AND after hearing of David's confrontation that she kept her mouth shut? OOOOOOOOkay? sure... And it's hard to imagine there were no witnesses to Nathan's confrontation. David wrote about his sin later. Everyone knew. I'm not as sure on this, but wasn't the reason Uriah slept in his doorway was to let the whole city (and later on his soldiers) that even though he obeyed David's orders to sleep at his home, he didn't have sex with her just like what he expected of his men on the battlefield. So, in effect, there WAS an announcement placed at the gate. *** If speculation is what you want to avoid, it's very clearly the case that Dr urged us from 1975 to 1985 to master what was written. It's clearly the case that no one really did this, not all the way, not even close. The only way to find out if there is substance to these urgings is to DARE to be the RARE grad to do it. *** As for that exchange between Dr and Chris I'd like to see the transcript of the tape. Please don't be offended in this, but I've learned that it's pretty easy for us to inject our mind pictures into memories and distort them. I do this; we all do this. I'd like to examine every detail of what was said. Can you pinpoint the date at all, just to help me in this pursuit? If you can't date it, then how well can you rely on the details you seem to remember? Again, no offense intended, just rigor sought. ******* And johniam, thank you for that additional data. Yes, everyone knew of the Uriah matter. ******* oldiesman, Although I'm disappointed with you on the open ended mastery objection/excuse, I do thank you for your later two posts. Nice. Couldn't you, yourself, come up with a suitable endpoint for mastery? Come on, I know you can do it. ;) ******* If anyone sees any item in WW's posts that they think I should respond to, please let me know. I skim his posts and skip some too finding myself getting too angry at the many things wrong and how much time it would waste in trying to answer it all. I want to be thorough but not at his bidding. Just paste in any parts you would really like to see me deal with and tell me why, ok? Thanks

WW, Yikes, man! Is there no end to your lying about me?!!! Again you lie. You wrote: "I said Mike's premise in 2002 was that the pfal books were derived by divine dictation..." It has ALWAYS been my position here and for many years that it was NOT generally by divine dictation that the scriptures and PFAL were given. I have posted how Dr says this in the Thess Univ of Life tapes when he hits the first verses of each of the two epistles. You ARE confused. Shall I find the posts to prove you are dead wrong? What kind of repentance do you promise when I do produce such evidence? Hmmmmmmm? What are you going to do when I produce an abundance of posts that prove you wrong? Probably nothing. *** Here I did a quick search of this board and my prune surviving posts. I looked up "dictation" and filtered it with "Mike." Look what I found right off the bat on page 11 of the thread here named "Dr's Last Teaching - LOST for 17 Years!" on page 11 ******* Mike Jan 1 2003, 11:53 PM Post #201 "Written revelation doesn't have to be all divine dictation. In fact, in the Thessalonians University of Life, Dr TWICE mentions in covering verse 1:1 for both of these epistles, that there is a reason why there are three names mentioned as authors: Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. At these two points Dr teaches that written revelation is usually NOT divine dictation, but first the revelation to Paul was discussed between the three, and then later put into written form. In I Peter 1:20-21 we see the WRITTEN scripture mentioned in verse 20 as coming from a process where (next verse) holy men of God SPAKE. "It's easy to see that God could have utilized Bullinger's work to get Dr to the point of hearing a revelation of “Vic, Bullinger got it right here.” Additionally, these selected passages of Bullinger may have ALSO been given by revelation, or maybe only portions of them. There's lots of permutations that can be involved." ******* Sorry for the screwed up punctuation. That happened long ago when threads were moved to different forums. It would be nice to get them corrected someday. ******* Here's another onefrom "The Ubiquitously Hidden Teaching of VPW" page 65 Mike Posted on: Jun 19 2003, 06:54 PM "Goey, "Just to fluff things up a bit: it appears like you hold to the 'divine dictation' model of Scriptural revelation and inspiration. "Written revelation doesn't HAVE to be all divine dictation. In fact, in the Thessalonians University of Life, Dr TWICE mentions in covering verse 1:1 for both of these epistles, that there is a reason why there are three names mentioned as authors: Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. At these two points Dr teaches that written revelation is usually NOT divine dictation, but first the revelation to Paul was discussed between the three, and then later put into written form. In I Peter 1:20-21 we see the WRITTEN scripture mentioned in verse 20 as coming from a process where (next verse) holy men of God SPAKE." ******* WW, are you pulling my chain, deliberately trying to waste my time, or are you just unusually sloppy? I have posted much on NOT accepting the divine dictation model. You are massively confused. I started posting on Christmas day 2002. ************** oldiesman, You wrote: "Because if it is available for me to master PFAL, I want to know exactly when I have attained that mastery. ___ Saying that we should master PFAL, but not being able to tell when we have actually attained that mastery, is like Chris Geer saying we need to "get back on the Word." ___Too aloof." So you don't accept the lifetime model, yet I'll bet you do feel that an open ended mastering program of your KJV (or other versions) for a lifetime is ok. Am I right? How about this: You know when you've mastered PFAL enough when you can operate the revelations manifestations well enough to get correct phone numbers from God.... or when you can hear Him tell you that's enough.... or when ..... Oh I give up. I think you are the aloof one here.