Mike

I already answered that, both recently and several times in the past two years. If I answer it again it will be ignored again. If I were to fill out your questioneer you wouldn't believe me. If you are happy with your relationship with God fine. If you want to see what you missed in PFAL and enjoy a better relationship come back to PFAL.

CM, I'm not basing what I say on Galatians only. Plus, I have seen this for myself. When we received the token gift of holy spirit, that gift does not go into the mind area (soul) and affect it. That gift does not go into the body and affect that either. Body, soul, and spirit and three distinct categories. Before receiving the gift we are body and soul only and are dead. Upon receiving the gift we finally become complete beings, HOWEVER our body is still prone to sickness and death, and our soul/mind is still a natural man's mind, which is an enemy of God and cannot deal with spiritual matters, considering them foolish. After receiving the gift of holy spirit we can continue feeding that corrupt mind with God's ACCURATE Word. Even though it can't comprehend spiritual matters, that corrupt natural-man mind can believe the written Word. Believing is a natural process. As we continue this feeding there comes a point where God can perform the next stage in our development, which is forming a NEW mind in there, the mind of Christ. THEN we can understand spiritual matters as that mind grows and surpasses the old man nature, which by this point is dying off. This stage is now available, since the ACCURATE Word has again been made available to us. It was lost in the first century, but during the 1942-85 period it was completely restored in the PFAL writings. This is why we can live in a new administration, since new things are available. *** The last stage is having our bodies renewed, receiving the perfect body. This is still future, and comes at the very end of this new administration. *** You wrote of my mentioning of "Christ formed within" thusly: "I'm so sick of your wrong usage of this scripture I could hurl." This is your natural man's mind rejecting spiritual matters. If I were you I'd come back to PFAL and resume feeding from the ACCURATE Word. Either you haven't gotten Christ formed in your soul yet, or that mind of Christ is in there but it's at such a baby stage that your old man nature still dominates. When we use our natural mind we can't understand spiritual matters and they seem foolish to us. The revulsion will pass as you come back to God's plan of development where all three categories, spirit then soul then body, are to be renewed.

dmiller, Loving God as a big commandment was around long before Jesus. Jesus was quoting Moses in Deut 6 for this doctrine. I think loving our neighbor is also OT.

Jesus Christ chose spokesmen to relay his doctrine. To insist that Jesus had to "say it himself" in the Gospels for it to qualify as Christ's doctrine is to deny him the right to choose spokesmen to say something FOR him. Jesus himself said that his Gospel recorded words were incomplete. John 16:12 has him saying "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." He then goes on to indicate that they would be guided into all truth. However this guidance was not like many want to believe, direct, that is. The guidance that brought his apostles into the all truth was through Paul's writings. Paul says so in Eph. 3:4 ("...whereby when you read...") and Peter verifies this with his dying last words in II Peter 3: 15-16. In Acts 26:15-16 we read of Paul being appointed a spokesman with: "And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;" Then in Galatians 1:6-12 Paul writes: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. ____ For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." When we get Christ formed within our soul (mind) and continue feeding from the ACCURATE Word, we too can be spokesmen. The seed, token of "Christ in you" is only the HOPE of glory, and does not affect the mind. Having Christ formed within (Gal.4:19) the soul is THE glory, not just the hope of it. Glory means speaking authoritatively of which we have TRUE ("true" means spiritual as opposed to factual) knowledge. For anyone to speak authoritatively from this Christ formed within is Christ's doctrine.

TheEvan, A little more explicitly, what I mean is the few of us seriously even read the books thoroughly, substituting "sitting through" the class for absorbing the written materials. Even fewer of us mastered the books with 5-senses understanding. This is expecially the case due to our failure to keep the REAL author in mind. We lost the initial trust we had in God giving Dr revelations, and we treated the PFAL materials as mere man-breathed aids. We who did read a lot STILL didn't see many details due to our forgetting the true source of the writings. While some serious students did get many facts accurate, failure to keep in mind that God was the True Author caused even these students to miss much. Where NO ONE got it was in the spiritual understanding. It is here, in this detail, that you mock God with decoder ring references. The only way anyone sees the spiritual side of PFAL is if God Almighty reveals it to him. Your decoder ring is God. God does not bother to reveal these things to anyone who has not bothered to go the route with the 5-senses mastery.

Mr. Hammeroni, You wrote: "I still think that in a practical sense, it failed miserably- at least to the extent of the claims." I still think that in a truthful sense, it failed miserably to be taken seriously. We failed to get it right. We coasted on partial knowledge and we crashed into the wall. Your complaints are loaded with confusion over the differences between TWI the company, and the PFAL revelations, between God Who issued the revelations, and people who misapplied them. Sure many things went wrong in how people behaved. Bosses misbehaved, employees misbehaved, leaders misbehaved, followers misbehaved. All that lousy behavior stemmed from a lousy approach to the class materials. The class materials, the printed revelations, still stand waiting proper understanding and application.

HCW, Tag team?! Can't you see the places where What The Hay is disagreeing with me? He's very diplomatic about it, but he often counters my positions. I find his disagreements with me more deeply thought through than most posters here, and hence I pay a little more attention to them. I often chose to not pursue my disagreements with WTH, and only magnify where we DO agree. This may be where you pick up on a team like relationship. His disagreements with me are subtle in nature and subtle in delivery, so they serve as a key to me as in gaugeing how accurately some other posters here are willing to or able to follow the deeper details in the discussion.

Mr. Hammeroni, I agree with you here: Viewing the class or sitting through the class, as you have put it, indicate to me an exposure to the film class, (or video or audio). It is my contention that the vast majority of us grads did indeed have a rich and oft repeated exposure to the 1967 film class sound track, just as you have indicated here was the case for you. It was the case for me also. I agree with you here: It is also my contention that this aural, verbal experience of PFAL by the vast majority of us grads did NOT WORK OUT WELL for us. This network of ideas and thought patterns did start out in a beneficial mode, but it degenerated as the years went by. I have given a name to this network of ideas and thought patterns that this verbal tradition became, it's TVT for Twi's Verbal Tradition. In it's later years the TVT drifted not only far from the original PFAL revelations, but it bifurcated many times over into hundreds of slightly differing TVTs, and later into the many large and small splinter groups currently operating. We may disagree here: It is my contention that the vast majority of us grads, though having rich aural exposure to PFAL, our exposure to the WRITTEN form of PFAL was paltry. I have debated this for many hundreds of rounds here. I agree with you that your later exposure to the counterfeit TVTs of PFAL gave you insufficient tools for realizing the promise of PFAL, and that your quality of life was even diminished by this exposure. I agree that your earlier exposure to the verbal forms of PFAL (film, video, tape) gave you insufficient tools for realizing the promise of PFAL. However, if you got in early enough, you may have noticed that your quality of life was temporarily and/or partially enhanced by this exposure. *** So, Mr. Hammeroni, I often qualify my claims and specifically mention that it's the WRITTEN forms of PFAL that are what we were told to master, not the verbal forms. Sitting through the class umpteen times does not expose a grad to the wealth of information that was in written form. You only skimmed the surface of PFAL if you didn't work every chapter of every book several times. I know I did that much study back then, and I now know that still was not enough. Even though I did work every chapter of every book back then, I did STILL miss much that I am only now finding. It sounds to me that your exposure to PFAL was pretty casual, and we were told that if we didn't master the material we'd miss the meat. I'm not surprised at the results you got. You WILL BE surprised at the results you get if you do come back to PFAL and seek to meekly master it's contents.

Mr. Hammeroni, You wrote: "Samuel's "advanced class" lasted half a verse- twenty one WORDS- in the King James Version, anyway. But no, he must have worked so hard, retemorized soooo much scripture, memorized his PFAL book." I'm afraid you forgot a few things. You forgot that Samuel was working full time in the temple since a very young age. He had YEARS of training. You also forgot that the writing style of the scriptures is often (to the simple) deceptively abreviated and can be very brief in chronicaling the passage of time. You also forgot to include in your admittedly simple observations that Samuel had grown up in a culture that was extremely simple and God oriented, while we grow up in a complex one that heavily rejects God at every turn. You also forgot that Abraham is described as a prophet of God, yet there is no foretelling of his recorded. Other than that, your analysis was very incisive ... NOT! You also wrote: "'Master' revelation- ha. Either you've got it or you don't." Guess what? We don't got it. Guess what else: God wants to have it. Do you have to guess what the devil wants? I'll seek God and His still small voice, and you can seek... what ARE you seeking anyway?

ChattyKathy, I no longer worry about the glitch that it is that Dr failed to rise up to believe and act on his own teaching. For him to admit that he was not the man he knew to be was a huge thing... but it was not an unprecedented thing. I have written here before about the ultra-compartmental nature of God's divvying out jobs to people. God gives a job to someone NOT because they deserve it, but because He knows they will get that job done. We tend to give out jobs based on past performance, because we do not have foreknowledge. God sees if the job will get done and awards the "contract" in spite of other failures (past, present, or future) in that same individual. Many men of God have brought forth God's Word for others to believe and walk on, even though they themselves fell short. Moses had sin in his life, the kind of sin that completely disqualified him from entering the promised land. Yet, Moses still had the believing and willingness to lead God's people where they had to go for THEM to walk into the promised land. John the Baptist prepared the way for God to set up His Son's ministry, and in doing so John was given GREAT praise by Jesus, yet John did not live to see Pentecost. Almost all of the prophets were successful in getting God's job done, yet were not able to taste the fruit for themselves...yet. I would have been much happier if Dr had succeeded more, but I've learned to be thankful for those areas in his life where he dared to believe God's revelation and distribute it. I have not yet succeeded in hearing God's still small voice in all the exactitude and specificity I greatly desire, but I know of no other way to cultivate my ability to hear Him than to study what He made available in the PFAL revelations. He guided me to it, and He guided me BACK to it.

ChattyKathy, I tend to think of blame in a soft sense. I've posted on this before and it was not well received, but here goes again. First of all, the myriad of incidences where something went wrong and someone got blamed, whether rightly or wrongly, I want to look away from. The everyday minor failures are not what I focus on. What I look at is the general overall failure of us grads at becoming The Word, at becoming spiritual beings, at becoming Jesus Christ men and women. Still, it is a soft blame I have in mind here. Our culpability is in our being human... merely human... natural man human. The rule is that people act like body and soul animals most of the time, and the exception is when someone rises above that and acts in A SUPERNATURAL mode. An even greater exception is for someone to rise up and stay at the spiritual level. And then, the grand exception of them all is where a class of many thousands of grads ALL rise up to become The Word made flesh. It is here that we "failed" and yet it is here that I firmly believe we can still succeed. The 1942 intervention by God is that big, that He is inviting us up to His level by way of the teaching that He, Almighty God, placed in those written PFAL teachings. HCW, there's your answer above, in general terms. I should search my files for my previous three answers to the same question: why PFAL? In a nutshell, and being more specific, I expect that by mastering the written forms of PFAL we will get sharper at hearing God's direct still small voice. I see PFAL as the arena for us learning the revelation manifestations (and then the impartation) like they have not been known since the first century. Once we get good at recognizing God's voice, and rejecting the counterfeits, then He can tell us some mighty things He wants done and we will be able to do them.

Mr Ham, I dunno. I'd say it's more like simple minds that want to know. I'm surprised to be asked this question for several reasons, besides the fact that I've been asked it before several times. I'm surprised that people would stoop to such a question. Doesn't anyone remember the Thomas incident with Jesus? I'm also just as surprised when people ask me how many "converts" I have. I guess I'm surprised by these two oft repeated questions because they're coming from grads. In the old days I'd hear questions like "How many people?" or like "How much are the results?" coming from the lips of rank unbelievers who had run out of intellectual reasons to resist witnessing. As a type of attack, these questions would be asked not for the potential information content in an answer, but to throw the witnesser off guard or to throw him into a defensive mode. I would sometimes mock those who would ask me these kinds of questions. I knew there were no answers that would sway them, so I'd resort to sarcasm. I'd say that I got a shinney new bicycle since I believed. I'd tell them that I was given a NEW CAR in a TV announcer voice imitation. Mr, Ham I've answered that question here several times and no one cared enough for my answers to remember them. Do you mind if I ask you a question? How much or what type of "results" would sway you? What kind of results would get your attention, help you change your mind, and dive into PFAL mastery headlong? You see? There are no results that would do that for you. Suppose I actually DID report some results that did the trick for you, how would you go about investigating if I were lying or not? I don't think you've thought through your question very well, and these are probably unexpected nuances I've come up with to ask you about. Do you admit that your question is REALLY to get me to introspect a little, and maybe find some areas in my life where believing is still a challenge. Is it the case that your question is not to bring in information for your decision processes, but is to evoke self doubt on my part, so that I back off of my position? You KNOW that no matter what I answer your question with, it's NOT going to get you to flinch an inch in YOUR position, right? *** Does anyone here remember the differing ways I have answered this question the last few times it was asked? *** I always figured that if a grad had some fantastic PFAL results to report, that report would only go so far in convincing people of PFAL's goodness. Seeing other people's results and deciding to try it is only something that's done by a beginning believer. For advanced believers, anecdotal information such as someone else's results should have NO SWAY in doctrinal issues. We were taught this: experience is no guarantee for truth. I'm just surprised that I'm asked this question by supposedly seasoned grads. Didn't you get asked questions like "How many people?" or like "How much are the results?" in your witnessing days, and didn't you see that they are cheap questions?

Mr. Hammeroni, To the best of my limited knowledge, the "cancer = spirit" teaching never appears in the written form of PFAL, nor in the '67 film class. I'm nearly 100% sure that it never appears in the 1979 Advanced Class video tapes. It was conspicuously absent in my live AC in 1975. I can't find it in my 1975 AC syllabus. All of my knowledge of that doctrine traces back to TVT sources in the early 70's, like '72 and '73. I have posted on this about three or four times in the past two years. When I have a viral infection, or a bacteriological infection, or a fungal infection that hurt my well being, I am thankful to know that they are NOT OF God and that I can look to God for help in healing.

Answer what? I haven't had time to even read all the recent posts, let alone respond.

Mr Hammeroni, Where and when OLG people accurately did do what PFAL taught, we OLG people got good to great results. But this was not always done accurately, and as time went on (by the mid 1980's) it got done LESS and LESS accurately. In the 70's we still had our collateral exposure fresh in mind, and what did work well for us was due to us literally believing what we were taught and acting on it. IN CONTRAST, we OLG people did everything BUT what Dr's final instructions directed us to do by the mid 80's. Starting in 1985, when Dr issued his final instructions, we OLG people did everything BUT seriously come back to written PFAL to master it in order to "energize the spirit" or whatever phrases may more accurately describe what we needed at that time. The bad news is, therefore we OLG people failed PFAL, and PFAL did not fail us. *** Anyone who tried to apply PFAL after Dr's death had the deck stacked against them, and I constantly must remind myself that they share none of this blame OLGs have for failing PFAL. I have no doubt that PFAL did not work for non-OLGs after 1985. After 1985, the accurate forms of PFAL in our minds was being daily smothered with proliferating TVTs. Charismatic leaders were grinding out their own doctrines within the ministry before the meltdown in '86-89 and these many TVTs were becoming like separate denominations, hundreds of them, within the ministry. By 1990 most of them became official separate denominations, all diverging farther and farther from the accurate doctrine of PFAL. When compared to the results of the 70's, these ersatz forms of PFAL have failed to produce too. I'd even include official '67 film/video classes run by TWI after 1985, as well as bootleg '67 film/video classes run by a few splinters after 1985. *** The good news is, it's not too late. We OLGs can come back to written PFAL and see what we missed, and what we forgot, and what we got wrong. We can find where exactly each one of us failed PFAL and get it right this time. Once a few OLGs do this, non-OLGs will have a reason to give it a second try. We OLGs saw it work once, for a limited time, so we are generally the only ones who might be willing to take the risk and invest the time.

WordWolf, It would be more gentlemanly of you if you'd supply links to all those quotes of me that you stripped of their context and posted above. The idea of replacement I have presented here is very limited, and the surrounding context expresses that limitation. Please don't isolate small pieces of what I write without making the context abundantly easy for the reader to find. Supplying those links is sometimes hard work, because if the threads are moved their link changes. HOWEVER, if you're going to quote me like that I should not have to be the one to find the links and re-post the context. You should make it easy for readers to check the context in which my quotes occur. And worse, some of the threads from which you quoted me may have been pruned in recent weeks, or they may be pruned at some future time. This would make it impossible for a reader to check if you had or had not wrenched my quote from a crucial context and distorted it. *** Until then this context issue can be settled, let me put my position on replacement in the simplest terms that I can at this point. In the study schedules of OLGs only, I advocate that for their usual daily study hours, they replace their KJV (or NIV or whatever) with the written PFAL texts. For example, suppose OLG extraordinaire Johnny Jumpup spends one hour per day in his KJV and five or ten minutes in PFAL in one or two sittings every six weeks. I'd then advocate this OLG Johnny that he replace his KJV in the one hour per day habit with PFAL, and spend five or ten minutes in one or two sittings every six weeks with the KJV. Extending that example, I'd advocate that those OLGs who spend no regular time in any Bible to come back to PFAL and replace some weekly TV shows with it. I hope this TV show replacement urging of mine is less controversial than my above urging for disciplined Bible readers to replace their KJVs. I'd be interested to know just how many Bible reading hours per day most of the posters on this thread clock up. *** I have another example of my position. I think I stated this in my first weeks of posting. I advocate for OLGs that they try to get together weekly with other OLGs, if possible, just like the "Grad Night" format fellowships that was relatively common in the early 70's. For these special fellowships I'd advocate replacing KJV Bible study with collateral study. The teacher would teach from a collateral, and all the people would follow along in their own copies of the same collateral. Mastering PFAL together for OLGs is a big thing. People should try it some time. Kids could be included, but I'd somewhat hold off on new people. Again: The idea of replacement I have presented here is very limited, and the surrounding context expresses that limitation. Please don't isolate small pieces of what I write without making the context abundantly easy for the reader to find.

. ChattyKathy, You wrote: "Let's take it a step at a time okay." Ok. :)--> My available time for steps is a little scarce these days, so that would nicely fit in with my schedule. I'm happy to have communicated a little with you in this first step. .

ChattyKathy, If you don't want to engage me any more here I'll understand. It would be nice if you'd tell me if I answered your objection. If my post is too long up above, please try just reading the bold faced paragraph. Thanks.

laleo, No, it's not ego. I subject my ego to a pounding here. Why? It's for the VERY few who have heard or are hearing to a small degree. It's true that I have not yet mastered PFAL. I seek companions to master it with me, and in this sense I have been successful. HCW, this ties in with your last post too. If my posting were a set of e-mails with just one person, or just the relatively few active posters who engage me, then I'd be crazy to have continued it for two full years and 4000 posts. But it's not just a few active posters that comprise my reasons for posting. This forum is not a simple exchange between the posters. There are many who are simply reading along silently. They may be seeing my points, or maybe will see them tomorrow. A year after I quit posting some one person may come along and see my message. This is a far more complex situation of me witnessing to a few people, they reject my message, and then I'm obligated to move on. An even farther removed, yet still valid reason for me to post in the face of seemingly total opposition is that I am operating the principle of releasing what I am learning. Not only that, but the atmosphere of opposition demands great thinking through of every sentence I post, knowing that there is a hord ready to pounce on each sentence. It's a little like wearing training weights while jogging. When I get to a more receptive audience I will have thought through all the angles due to the workout I get here. But lately, my amount of avaliable time is low, and the number of challenging points thrown at me is high. Otherwise I'd love to deal with each and every point made. HCW, I noticed that you are on to something interesting in the opening lines of your latest post. It looks like we may be revolving around the same ideas, but using slightly different words to describe those ideas. I must leave now, but I'll return to study your recent post more later. If you feel like expanding on those opening paragraphs then PLEASE DO. More specifically it's these paragraphs that I find intriguing: "NO. They would not become a part of God's word, they would be some things that God told one of his children on a given day that might be of benefit to others of his children. "The problem I see with your POV on this topic is how you consistently ignore the personal, Fatherly, relationship God has with each and every one of his children. You confuse and then blur the line between things God tells us and TERM them, 'revelation' and 'God-Breathed.'" I'll be back.

ChattyKathy, You wrote: "I know I'll regret this but....." Please don't be so sure you'll regret this... PLEASE? I chose your post to respond to because it showed the most heart, and because I only have the time and energy to do one post this morning. Most of the other posts this past 24 hours I haven't even had time to fully read. I don't know if you've ever had many posters piling on you with intense disagreements, many of them vastly differing in details, and all trying to make you look as foolish as possible. As often as it has happened to me, I still find it difficult to deal with. I may have also chosen your post because knowing that I am responding to a lady helps me hold back the urge to lash out as harshly as I sense some of the men here are doing with their testosterone flexing against me. You wrote: "Mike, re-read your first paragraph. IF IT WERE TO REPLACE THEM....That's kind of wild don't you think? To even think it is way to liberal for a Bible believer IMO." I actually agree with you here. It is due to a misunderstanding that you had the reaction you describe here. Please let me explain. I have been falsely accused on MANY occasions here of saying that I believe "PFAL replaces the Bible." Here when I use the the word "Bible" I mean the the common everyday understanding of that word: the ancient scriptures fairly accurately translated into English. You may have heard this accusation repeated so many times that you THINK you remember me actually saying that. I did not. I did say something that had those words in it, but there were other words there with them along with a context, and that whole set of words and ideas are NOT repeated often here by my accusers, because if they did, their accusations would not have the sensational impact they do. The reason I recently used a phrase like the one you objected to ("If PFAL were to replace the Bible...") was to construct a part of my DENIAL that I believe PFAL replaces the Bible. I simply repeated the accusation against me to try and show that it is an illogical accusation. Please let me repeat this denial, putting it in slightly different words. Let's say some strange and odd person (not me!) were to think that PFAL replaced the Bible. Ok, now let's watch that person open up the PFAL book and start reading it with comprehension and meek believing. It wouldn't take long before that person started getting the idea from that PFAL book that the KJV Bible was a WONDERFUL book to get to know. The PFAL book promotes the Bible like no other book I've ever seen! That strange and odd person would very soon change his mind about PFAL replacing the Bible. The PFAL book would inspire this poor fellow to do just the opposite of throwing away his KJV, and instead cherish it and want to get to know it through and through. THAT'S what I meant by my original statement you objected to: "If it WERE to replace them [scriptures], it would immediately re-instate them and their importance in the eyes of any reader." I didn't REALLY mean that it was possible for PFAL to replace the Bible. I was just talking about someone who might THINK it does. I know you haven't read much of my long posts, and on a thread like this you are exposed to many others ganging up on me and twisting what I do say and believe for their own egotistical benefits. Men ares sometimes like dogs or wolves and enjoy a group hunt. This instinctual behavior can be good at times, but here they are not being honest in the way they represent me. They quote me out of context and look for nuances in my words they can use against me. They ignore the heart I aam trying to communicate. Trying to understand me is the LAST thing they want to do. Many of them are caught up in a zeal to protect those they think are innocent and vulnerable, which is admirable if accurate, but in this case they are dead wrong. If you would like to discuss any more of these issues with me here or by PT I'd be happy to accommodate you. *** You also wrote: "If God placed His Word above His name then how could He place the possiblity of anything being over that? PFAL was good for my life, I've never stated the opposite here but dang man! it is not above God or His Word. Not for a southern second!" Again I have great agreement with you here. HOWEVER, if it is the case that God actually did give Dr a series of revelations (the manifestation of word of knowledge) over a 42 year span, AND He guided him to put these revelations into written form (word of wisdom) THEN we have to do some more thinking. For God do what I just described is NOT forbidden. God is allowed to talk to people, and He is allowed to tell them to put His message into written form. We are not generally aware of God doing this in the past 2000 years, but it's not forbidden. If God actually did do this with Dr, THEN those revelations would be PART of God's Word too. They wouldn't be ABOVE God, though. They would be a PART of God's Word. If God did not give Dr such an abundance of revelations, then I am dead wrong in all my posting here. In the early 1970's many of us grads thought that God DID give him lots of revelation, and in doing this we found that at times God would give us revelations too. We got talked out of this, though, and the signs miracles and wonders are now much less plentiful, compared to the 1970's. We resorted to the more "normal" traditional idea that God is forbidden to add to His own Bible. The closing lines of the Book of Revelation (as they are translated in the KJV) make it look like God is forbidden to add to his own written words. I do not read that verse like it is traditionally believed. I know that God forbids PEOPLE from adding to His written Word, but He Himself can add to it all He wants. He did so in Jeremiah 36 if you care to see an example of this. *** Lastly you wrote: "And where in the Bible do you back up believing in a man's work over that of Jesus Christ, while doing His Father's will (freely)?" I could never back up an idea like that, nor would I even try to think it. There were many men in old times who received revelations from God and who then put them into written form. The work done by these men NEVER superceded the work that Jesus Christ did. All of the Biblical writers did work that helped us, but none of them out did Jesus Christ's work. I do NOT believe that Dr did anything coming close to what Jesus Christ did. All Dr did was hear God's revelation and pass it on. That in itself involved SOME work, but nowhere near the work that Jesus did of BECOMMING the Word and DOING it to the uttermost. Dr lamented that he had failed to become the man he knew to be. Jesus Christ DID become the man he knew to be, and so far he's the ONLY man to do that. The workload Jesus Christ accomplished dwarfs all other men's works. I believe in Jesus Christ because of the written work done by the spokesmen Jesus Christ appointed to tell me about him. *** CattyKathy, I hope this was not a regrettable experience for you. I am very disinclined to argue lately with the hord who hound me here, but I would love to discuss any other impressions you have of me. Maybe they are mis-impressions like this one and we can discuss some deep and pleasant things.

Raf, You seem to willingly forget that I get exposed to a massive number of KJV verses as I study PFAL. Nearly every page has verses. I had 27 years exposure to the entire man-breathed KJV. There is nothing lacking in my spiritual diet. I probably CURRENTLY get more KJV exposure than most posters here, yet you seem to want to ignore that too. Take a poll someday or ask around how much posters here open up their Bibles. Do you want to condemn Oakspear and Abigail for what they have replaced their KJV exposure with? No? Why not?

Steve Lortz, Let's not forget that all of the ancient Biblical writers were human, and that NOT ALL that they wrote was God-breathed either. What WAS God-breathed of their writings and what God wanted preserved for us, made it to us. *** socks, I didn't discover anything. I spent 11 years looking, from 1987 to 1998, and I found NOTHING of import. It was all showed to me by a man here in San Diego in 1998. I take no credit. I simply embraced a point of view superior to my own. I reveled in discoveries not my own. This has been my testimomy here all along, but no one has paid much attention to what they can't hang me on. Your musings against me are those of a man trying to justify his own continued disobedience to Dr's final instructions.

HCW, I don't believe I've ever said that PFAL writings REPLACE the ancient scriptures. To use just that one word "replace" is to misrepresent me. You listened to what others said I said, and not what I actually wrote. I have said that for OLGs who have already spent a lot of time in the KJV, the mastery of PFAL should replace KJV study IN THEIR PRESENT STUDY SCHEDULES. Just recently I stated that if I were to "convert" a non-grad to my way of thinking, I would have to encourage that person to spend MUCH time in the KJV along with study of PFAL. Why was this missed by all those who "quote" me as saying PFAL replaces the KJV? WHY??? Because they WANT to misrepresent me, and desparately, I might add. It's ridiculous to think that PFAL replaces the same scriptures it discusses in great length. If it WERE to replace them, it would immediately re-instate them and their importance in the eyes of any reader. In a practical sense PFAL "replaces" the ancient scriptures in the same way Paul's epistles "replace" the law of Moses. In other words, PFAL only "sort of replaces" the ancient scriptures. Remember, Dr's dying last (and lost) words were to master PFAL.

I'll repeat this: One of the editors of the PFAL book AGREED with my assessment of that grammar, and that Dr was claiming on that page to have SOME necessarily God-breathed writings. He did NOT agree that Dr's written claim was true, at least not fully. He leaned in that direction at times, and admitted that in the old days he and MANY others leaned in that direction A LOT. Three overt "Thus saith the Lord" statements stare us all in the face: TNDC p. 34, TNDC p. 116, and PFAL p. 83. I've seen a total of almost a hundred not-so-overt statements in print and tape. The old timers remember Dr often claiming this authority, but he stopped making many of the overt claims after 1971 and his interview with Elena Whiteside. I did not like these claims in those days, but I did remember them. His dying last words (which were mysteriously lost for over 15 years) tell us to master, NOT the traditional KJV Bible or any other man-made version, but the God-breathed PFAL writings.

WordWolf, I have posted often on PFAL page 83, and will do so again. On that page Dr admits that his own words were merely man-breathed and having no purity nor authority. But he also states that SOME of the words he writes were NOT his own, were taught to him by God, and THUS WERE were God-breathed, pure, and authoritative. On that page we read: "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed..." Plain English dictates that he is saying here (in paraphrased form) "...of a necessity, SOME of what Wierwille writes is God-breathed." Why "of a necessity" ? Because God had promised to teach him His Word like it had not been known since the first century if he'd teach it to others. The phrase "not all" means "some." I have discussed this passage for hours with one of Dr's editor's. By "editor" I mean one of the people who took the '67 film class transcript and produced from it the PFAL book, under Dr's supervision. When I quoted the passage to him, books closed, he immediately said "I remember THAT line." Dr says it nearly the exact same way in the film class, and wanted the book to read exactly the way it does. Even though disagreeing with the truth of the statement, this editor did agree with my assessment of how the English used there boils down to "...of a necessity, SOME of what Wierwille writes is God-breathed."