Mike

WordWolf, I'm disappointed that you think I'm a practitioner of the ad hominem fallacy. When my person is attacked I do sometimes attack the attacker, and I think that is sometimes justifiable. It doesn't help me in my argument, but can nullify his attack, and it MAY help the attacker to reconsider his methods. If a messenger has an actual message, then "shooting the messenger" is a truly cheap shot. But for that same messenger to shoot back at his attacker and then have this retaliation labeled "shot the messenger" is an even cheaper shot. If the only message my attackers have is one directed at me personally, I think it's totally justifiable for me fight back if I think it's worth while to me and my message. I'm also disappointed to see that both you and HCW do rely heavily on the ad hominem approach when dealing with my message, which by the very definition of "ad hominem" is NOT justifiable. *** Just in case some readers are not familiar with that Latin term "ad hominem" here is how Research Geek defined it two years ago: "Fallacy against the person - Rejection of an argument by means of an irrelevant fact about the author. The attack is usually against the character of the person. That is if they did so and so, they must be wrong about their premise." Recently a few other posters cited a website cataloging logical fallacies, and here is the definition of "ad hominem" found there: "Argument against the man. This is a personal attack on the person who presents or endorses a viewpoint and is often used as a last resort when the facts cannot be disputed. Called "poisoning the well," the argument is that to destroy the credibility of the person endorsing the viewpoint will destroy his argument. This argument is used extensively to discredit candidates for election by dirty-tricks campaigns that lay their private lives bare to public criticism." *** I can leave it as an exercise to readers to look at all the very recent personal attacks here on this thread and see which were in the category of justifiable retaliation, and which were unjustifiable distractions from a message in attacking the messenger. I can also do this myself, too. If I have the time I may highlight in color all such attacks. But then this is a further distraction from my message. I dislike it when I have to spend more time posting on how we all post to each other than what I originally wanted to talk about: God and His Word, and how He has blessed us grads, and how we can come back to this blessing. Again, careful readers will be able to sort all this out. Maybe, instead of allowing myself to be distracted into a talk about what we were talking about how he had previously been talking ad infinitum, I should just ignore the attacks against me and press on with the message, responding to as many sincere responses in the discussion as possible. I'll be thinking all this through in the next couple of days. Thank you for acknowledging that lack of speediness in response is not necessarily equivalent to a lack of substance with which to respond. I wish you'd add to that acknowledgment a recognition that I do respond to a large volume of questions and challenges, especially those justifiably aimed not at me but at the logic of my message. I am as sparing and careful as possible in what I choose to ignore. I do admit with regret that with the high volume of challenges aimed at my message mean that some get lost in the shuffle. Sometimes, with repetition of a challenge, I will eventually respond as time permits. HCW's challenges to me are special, and I have a special file I'm saving them in. I have found him particularly insightful in many of his posts here when directed at other posters. Although I do see his error in cases when he has challenged me, his high volume and high density of challenges make it particularly difficult for me. I find his posts to me useful in that they bring out some very salient issues. In other words, far from shrinking from his challenges, I anticipate responding to them with great excitement. Their high volume and emotional invective do delay me. I am, however, almost done collecting all my thoughts on his first great challenge to me regarding his report that Dr himself denied in a personal conversation to HCW that his PFAL writings were God-breathed. I'm sure the material I have will surprise and disappoint those who expect a plethora of logical fallacies in my response.

dmiller, In order to minimize the number of threads I "derail" and the number I have to keep track of, I'd like to briefly respond to your thread on "Potifar's Wife" in the About the Way forum. In your thinking about this subject do you have similar ill thoughts toward David and his failure to deal with this temptation? David situation seems to be worse in that not only was he the instigator, but he followed it up with murder. Do you ever consider tearing out from your KJV the Psalms of David's because of his failures? Many here claim to have inside knowledge of whether a man, in his heart, has restored broken fellowship with the Father. I reject all such claims. With David we have God-breathed reports of both his sin and his restored fellowship. Compare this quality of heart insight with man-breathed reports of same and there is no comparison.

def59, I never doubted you. :)-->

How about we spin a wheel and whatever line comes up first, I respond to that line first? ;)-->

Gads! Talk about a homework assignment! This may TAKE a while!

oldiesman, You wrote: "Mike, I don't believe you're committing idolatry by believing that PFAL is God-breathed, but I still think you're wrong." I am extremely grateful for your kind words in opening here. Few have been so tolerant. But this IS a debate of sorts, so I must press on. Do you see that if you say PFAL is not God-breathed, then by the same reasoning, NOTHING IS? *** You wrote: "Dr. said there is no word lama in aramaic. __ Saying there is no word "like" lama is the same darn thing, cause then he says there is a word lmana. Dr. wasn't so unequivocal as to what you believe he said. He usually said it with force and boldness. So he said there is no word like, or as, lama. Since there is, PFAL has an error." I follow you and see the apparent discrepancy that bothers you, but it's in your last sentence above that I disagree. To say "...since there is [an apparent error], PFAL has an error" halts the research, and prematurely arrives at a conclusion. My stand in working PFAL, like our mutual stand in working the KJV or any other traditional Bible, is to say instead: "...since there is [an apparent error], this is an area we need to do additional work in our understanding." I would then assign a priority rating to this AE (apparent error) based on how much it affects my other study. Since this is not a begging doctrinal area to me, and it has no effect on my walk with God, I assign it a relatively low level, put it in that old spiritual closet Gail Winegarner used to speak often of, and continue to be on the lookout for clues as I conduct more pressing study in PFAL. *** I want to repeat something. Do you see that if PFAL is not God-breathed, then by the same reasoning, NOTHING IS? The type of disqualifying analysis you do with PFAL will disqualify all known Bibles too. They too have errors. I know you want to believe that the original versions, in the original languages and cultures, WERE God-breathed. But that's an abstract idea. Why do you believe it without proof, the kind of proof you insist on with PFAL? The reason I want to believe, and do believe, that the traditional Bible's originals were God-breathed is because I once tok a class called "Power for Abundant Living" on video tape and taught by one Victor Paul Wierwille. *** Can you point to a single book in your library that is God-breathed? I don't mean a book that's derived from something that was God-breathed 2000 years ago, I mean an actual, physical, errorless, God-breathed book. You can NOT pick up a single book and say to me: "This book is bigger than me. It's perfect. If I disagree with it, I must change ME, and not a single word in this book. No matter how much sense knowledge information comes my way saying such-and-such is in error in this book, I'm ignoring that sense knowledge because I know this book is straight from God. I dare not alter a single word, because it's God-breathed." There once was a time that many people could say that of a letter they got by pony express from the Apostle Paul, or of a scroll they had in their synagog. You could say that FIGURATIVELY with your KJV (and that's what Dr did in the class as he explained in segment 16, soon to come in this post), referring to the originals, but you can't do it literally. You can abstractly seek the originals with your KJV, but you don't actually have them, not totally. You can't even know for sure when your striving to attain the originals is done and it's the proper time to halt the search in any particular area. When you hold what you call a Bible, you really are holding a VERSION of the Bible. In Bible versions we have loads of errors and poor translations. You don't have a real Bible. Even if you did, you wouldn't have an authoritative translation of it. What you have of the original Bible is an approximation. Approximations may be good for a start, but when you're face to face with the adversary, like Eve was and like Jesus was, then you can't be one word off and win. That's why no one operates the manifestations effectually, because we only worked real hard with approximations of God's written Word, versions, and not with the revelations God gave Dr to put into print for us. Here's what Dr said word-for-word in the film class, segment 16, which was Session Three: "No translation, no translation, and I want you to listen very carefully; for no translation, and by the way that's all we have today at best are translations. No translation may properly be called The Word Of God... ..no translation!" Then a minute later he repeats: "Now I said that no translation, no translation, let alone a version, no translation may properly be called The Word Of God..." That's eight times (new beginning) that he uses the phrase "no translation." Then several minutes later he hits it again: "And in this class on Power For Abundant Living, when I refer to The Word Of God I may hold the King James Version or I may hold some other version and point to it; I do not mean that version. I mean that Word of God which was originally given when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." From taking PFAL I learned to overlook the MANY MAJOR errors that crept into the traditional Bible, correct any apparent errors due solely to my own wrong dividing of it, and abstractly look to the original revelation as my only rule for faith and practice. It is far easier for me now to overlook the FEW MINOR errors that have crept into written PFAL, correct any apparent errors due solely to my own wrong dividing of it, and concretely look to these books as my only rule for faith and practice, and look to PFAL as my book of books, my own "The Book," the newly defined Bible.

TLB, My many hours at the Sherlock Holmes School of Singular Sleuthing say to me that you used a typewriter for a long time before getting into using computers. Am I right? Or should I ask them for my money back? :D--> You wrote: "...please for give my earleir outburst against you. I know it was not very Christlike behavior." Please be assured that your mild complaint didn't bother me, and I doubt if Christ lost any sleep over it either. I am very accustomed now to genuinely vicious attacks against me. Not only than, but almost every Internet conversationalist notices that these quickly typed, voluminous interchanges easily lend themselves to unintentionally harsh writing into messages, AND to harshness being read into messages by the reader that were unintended by the writer. This is the reason for the invention of those smiley face symbols. *** You wrote: "The reason I gave books and chapters in an earleir post was that I do not have permission to quote those materials on the internet." Paraphrasing or outline sketches is always permitted. Quoting small passages is almost impossible to forbid. Even quoting large passages can, at times, be legal and even appropriate. Plus, there are ways in which the Internet is like the "Wild West" in that laws that cover paper and printing are void here. That may change someday, though. *** You wrote: "Yes, with exception of Lamsa and Errico, all other authors do beleive in the trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ." Yes, this cripples many otherwise interesting ministries, especially when it gets into us becoming the "Word made flesh" as Jesus did. The trinity places Jesus Christ on an unreachable pedestal. *** You wrote: " However, if you would open yourself and likewise Galen, to exam these books, you might be surprised how much similarity there is to PFAL, and it is done in a nonintimidating manner." If you were to master PFAL, you might be surprised to see more distance emerge between those books and PFAL that is hidden right to you now with your present knowledge of it. I have found that all of us grads have forgotten or misplaced much of PFAL, and that much was never absorbed in our first exposure to it. I don't doubt the non intimidating manner, though. Good manners have been learned by many churches. But pagans can learn that too, so it's not a halmark of truth. Truth itself, or even just one element of the truth can be intimidating to those who stand against it, consciously or accidently. *** In describing your ministry's activities that require no exchange of money you wrote: "It is called charity/love/agape with no intention of receiving money." Love can also be exhibited in charging a hefty fee for certain types of classes to prevent unready students from diluting the atmosphere of learning the otherwise serious and ready students deserve. Many Bible colleges operate this way, at least in part. The PFAL class was run this way to a degree, and I'm glad it was. We ran free twig fellowships and helped get students serious and ready for the more formal and rich atmosphere of learning the this class could offer. Many exceptions were made to the required donation to take PFAL, such as other grads fronting the money at times. When people fork over the dough they are in a better position to receive in many ways. Free isn't always good. Just look at inner city free housing and how it's been a colossal failure. People appreciate better and are more careful with those things they have to work for. *** You wrote: "Only a year ago did I start buying over the "net" 2nd hand copies of Wierwille's books, including 4 out of the 5 edited posthumously by Chris Geer from UK. So it has been almost 12 years since I ha seen the materials." We here in my San Diego fellowship have found that Geer's editing is not to be trusted. In fact, we trust no one's editing of his writings after Dr's death. The Way International bookstore is now open to the general public again. With a phone call to New Knoxville I received a catalog by US mail in two days. They were very polite and accommodating. Of course, I didn't attempt to talk doctrine, or worse yet ministry soap operas, with them. That would have been totally inappropriate, so I totally refrained. We have heard rumors that there has been some posthumous editing of Dr's writings by TWI, and that bothers us greatly. Time will tell. So will I. *** You wrote: "So take a chance and see if I am wrong on my conclusions and if you detect major errors, heresies, and blasphemies, then feel free to correct me either on this thread or do private email. But step out of the boat of your prejudices and walk on the water of truth to the living Way, Jesus Christ..." Since I firmly believe that Jesus Christ's Father was intimately involved in the writing of the PFAL collaterals, taking my eyes off them would be the equivalent of Peter taking his eyes off the Lord while he walked on water. That move will sink a man's walk. In addition to PFAL correcting many cherished christian-world errors, it also teaches us the HOW of operating the power he learned and operated. Here we have, in my opinion, one of the situations in life where a CLOSED mind is what God recommends. After many years of searching I am convinced that, although it is not intended for everyone, it is unique and God's best for us grads by far.

UncleHairy, You wrote: "Mike's attitude should not be surprising. It contains all the charecteristics of religious intolerance. Whenever I see someone who is absolutely resolute that THEY are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, I know that I have found a religious zealot." Get ready for a surprise: I agree with you that my "attitude contains all the characteristics of religious intolerance." You just left out the fact that religious intolerance is not the ONLY way of thought that is characterized by attitudes like mine. You could say the same thing of Jesus or Paul or Moses. And before you or anyone else resorts to the desperation technique of changing the subject to point out that my ego is too big in placing myself in the same category of Jesus, Paul, and Moses, please remember that I may think of my self as merely FOLLOWING them at a distance and still have their attitudes towards the truth. In other words, my attitudes ALSO contain all the characteristics of an enlightened person, at least for the characteristics under discussion. Most cult definitions I've ever seen, if applied to them, would brand Jesus or Paul or Moses as kooky zealots. If you think that way, at least you're being consistent. People who think that there is no Truth with a capital "T" to be had, or that it is totally inaccessible, will make the same logical mistake I pointed out opening this post. Jesus accepted no criticism that he just may have it even a little wrong somewhere. Ditto for Paul, Moses, and every other Biblical person who tapped in to the Truth. Nowadays the most popular philosophy is that, at best, truth could only be found by someone in robes and sandals, with a beard, and a birth certificate that is dated at least 2000 years ago. I other words, truth died with the apostles, and we can only get scraps of it, and we never know which scraps are true and which are in error. This leads to the truth tolerance you decry as missing in me. Jesus was intolerant with accepting ideas inferior to his, but he was VERY tolerant in accepting PEOPLE who were inferior to him. Ditto for all those who walk in love. I can see modern Truth believers as still in rejection that I have found it, but they look at the content of my message to discredit it, instead of attacking the messenger's attitudes. *** You wrote: " Being right becomes the primary force in their lives, they become dependant upon it like a junkie is to his drug. On a subconscious level, WHAT he believes is really irrelevant, it is a matter of BEING RIGHT. Of course, this requires an extremely closed mind...which is what Mike has strived for." I've reported here the several long periods of my life when I had an open mind, and you either ignore that or are ignorant of it. I have reported here that an open mind has its benefits and it's liabilities, and likewise with a closed mind. That seems to have escaped your awareness and attention. It's YOU, sir, that has a closed mind. *** You wrote: "This mindset brings with it an attitude of superiority (how could it not, seeing he's right and everybody else is wrong)...which usually manifests itself with condescending and patronizing remarks." No again. I did FIRST recognize the superiority of the set of ideas which I now propound. I achieved this recognition while holding a set of ideas I had to eventually regard as wrong. I saw that I was wrong, and changed my mind to embrace a superior set of ideas. When was the last time YOU determined that your deepest thoughts on life were totally wrong and needed to be changed? What were those old thoughts, what were the new thoughts, and when did the change occur... that is IF you ever did change. People who think they themselves are superior usually blame wrong on others. Kinda like the way you are doing with me. *** You wrote: "He's really not a bad fellow...he simply has a closed mind due to his codependance upon being the holder of absolute truth...quite comforting I suppose, but then again so is the junkies heroin." Now, what were you saying about "condescending and patronizing remarks" again?

outandabout, Don't worry about the tape. That one time I asked you about it years ago was NOT a request to get it back. It was just an inquiry if you had HEARD it. :)--> I have copies, and have also transferred it to CD now. I just wanted to know if you got a laugh from it! :D-->

outandabout, If you still have that audio cassette I gave you about 8 years ago called "Modern Comedy" it has several Talk Radio calls on the second half of side A dealing with unscratched lottery tickets.

Hi Exy, I was wondering what kind of reception I'd get here. It's nice to talk with you again. :)--> I've found that comedy is very useful in all kinds of tense situations. Didn't Pressed Down sing about a merry heart being like medicine, or something like that? Isn't it a Bible verse somewhere, or like one?

In the late 80's as my way of protesting against the newly introduced California lottery, I bought a one dollar scratcher ticket and REFRAINED from scratching it, showing it to people I knew or met. In coffee shop situations with strangers it served as a witnessing tool or conversation starter of sorts, as well as a political statement. It reminded me of the old draft card burnings in the 60's only in reverse. I talked it up on talk radio shows here and got some intense reactions. I quickly found out that my protest method stimulated a lot of emotions. Some laughed, some scratched ( :D-->) their heads in bewilderment, and some actually got angry! It revealed a lot to me about human nature. Then I soon figured out that refraining from scratching these things acts as a sort of consciousness expanding exercise for the owner, me! Try it and see! THEN I also soon noticed that since I was probably the only one doing such a crazy thing, what I had was a very rare piece of paper with the wax intact. Being an old philatelist from way back, it reminded me of uncanceled postage stamps. I had discovered a new kind of collectable! About 5 years later I saw a Parade Magazine article of a man in Texas who had invested $60,000 in unscratched lottery tickets! There are now websites where collectors buy, sell, and trade unscratched lottery tickets. Lotology, as they call it, goes back to the 1800's! Maybe, I didn't discover unscratched tickets after all, but it was fun pioneering it in a way. I have about ten of them in my collection. Nowadays I incorporate the idea into a comedy routine I do at coffee shop "open mic" nights.

Thanks! That's downright neighborly of you to say so. :)--> Especially in light of the intense debating we sometimes do. I want God to bless you to the max! I'm sure He does too!

Raf and Garth, If you were serious in charging idolatry about my use of the phrase like "God bowing" might I remind you that the figure of speech condescencio brings in much the same imagery? In context, I mentioned that in an argument between two people, if the core of the disagreement is merely two differing definitions of words, then it can be settled quickly by the more enlightened and loving person condescending or bowing to the other's definition temporarily. In looking it up, I may have to retract some of my ways of expressing all I did on that post, but not too much. The easiest way, with the short time I have right now, is to go back to the the original. We were taught this in PFAL pages 74-75: "Do you know why there is such a difference between the books of Amos and Isaiah, between the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John? Can you speak with any vocabulary other than the one you have? For instance, if you have never heard of the word “idiosyncrasy,” you can not use it. One can only use the vocabulary that he possesses. That is exactly what The Word declares in II Peter 1:21, that holy men of God spoke. They used their own vocabularies and their own modes of expression. The Gospel of Mark is short and choppy: “and immediately,” “and straightway,” “and forthwith.” These words are used because the writer of the Gospel of Mark was not a highly-educated man with a flowery vocabulary. But the Gospel of John is different. John wrote, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” How beautiful! Why? Because of John’s style of writing. Amos’ writing was terse; he was a herdsman. Isaiah used beautiful expressions. This accounts for the differences in writing styles that are found in the Bible. Holy men of God did the speaking and writing; they used their natural vocabularies. But they spoke 'as they were moved by the Holy Ghost [spirit] .'” The essence of what I posted still stands. Dr was not wrong in what he wrote about the king technically owning all the women in the kingdom. He did NOT teach that this was right, just a part of human nature. The tiny point I am yielding on is in regards to who exactly properly used the word "technically" in that other PFAL book passage: God or Dr.

dmiller, Your post on "first usage" was not totally lost on me, but it was somewhat. I'm nearly ot of time for just now, but I wanted to get into one point. I always had a hard time with "first useage" because I knew the the order of the books in the KJV was largely of man and not God. I never knew whether Dr was referring to first chronologically written, or first chronologically happening, or first appearing in the KJV canon, or first appearing in the Hebrew canon (OT). Acts could have been written much later than the epistles, even though it's story line occurs before. Do you see my quandary? Some things are easier, like in Genesis. But even there, I've heard that the book of job was written even earlier than Genesis. I don't know. The idea of "first usage" becomes much easier to apply (for me) when we look at the PFAL writings. There we see all the dates each book was written clearly. Plus the sequence of when various chapters were assigned to new students provides us with another interesting sequence. I just never have considered myself qualified to apply the idea of "first usage." Since I first started seriously believeing Dr wrote by revelation in 1998, I can FOLLOW a presentation of first usage there. But I currently refrain from applying that idea on my own. *** That said, another subject I've not had time for is the area you apply "first usage" to: interpretation of tongues being properly in the second person. Again, this is an area I have had little time to look into deeply. Since I start all my study nowadays assuming PFAL is correct, you know where I would steer the conversation if I had any decent knowledge on this, but I don't. HOWEVER, if you go to the Cortright websight homepage you can find a book on this subject written by a grad named Ren Manetti titled "In the Church, Prophecy is Equal to Speaking in Tongues Plus Interpretation." In other words, he supports what Dr taught and the iterptretation of tongues should NOT be in the second person as you argue. Here is what is said about that book there at the Cortright websight: "'In the Church, Prophecy is Equal to Speaking in Tongues Plus Interpretation' is a research based discussion of I Corinthians 12-14 that focuses on nine different logical arguments (mathematical proofs) supporting the conclusion that speaking in tongues with interpretation in the church equals the manifestation of prophecy." Here is the link: http://www.redbay.com/ekklesia/index.htm Last time I talked with Ren Manetti he had sent a copy to CES, where second person interpretation has been taught for years, and where I suspect you got some of your information. Maybe you can read it and see who has the more convincing arguments. I don't know what CES has to say about Ren's book. At the time we talked he had no response from them.

Thomas Loy Bumgarner, May I be the first to dub you TLB? It's inevitable. Don't try and resist. :D--> Before I respond to your latest post, please allow me to show you some respect. This is a rough playground, and people get into the habit of throwing disagreement about with great abandon. I do this too, even though I sometimes regret it. Sometimes I do it accidently without even knowing it. Sometimes I try to be respectful, and it's interpreted exactly the opposite. I noticed you felt disrespected by me in a previous exchange. I meant none personally, seeing that I've hardly had a chance to get to know your personality. What I was criticizing was the content of the message you posted. That kind of thing happens a lot here. Posters grown thick skins here, because there's not enough time to constantly consider people's feelings. There is a huge volume of information that does get posted, and sometimes loss of personal respect is the price we all pay for that volume. Often times people make up later on in a thread, or via e-mail, when toes are stepped on extra hard. That said, I want to respectfully extend the original criticism I had for the first post of yours that I responded to. In that first post you listed a bunch of chapter titles, when the context I was focusing on was a list of doctrinal errors. Then later, you posted a list of people's names, again avoiding the list of doctrinal errors common to denominational churches and that PFAL handled. I'm still interested in hearing how you and your ministry handle those items that PFAL identifies as common errors in christianity. It's still my contention that PFAL is of far greater value to us grads than anything else that's going on in the christian world. All that said, let's get into your latest post. You wrote: "...if Power for Abundant Living is so great class, then take each section/chapter, either live or video and then allow the group discuss what they saw or heard to get feedback, and don't correct them in front of others. Instead, say "that''s an interesting point or observation. I wonder why I didn't see that", then privately in love and tenderness, show them from scripture where they are wrong. But, remember that they are seekers and don't know the Bible..." In addition to the time such a procedure takes, it also exposes the other students to the error expressed by that one other student. I do believe in helping new students to save face, though, but not at the expense of having the others exposed to error uncorrected. The way Dr Wierwille set up the class is to not allow opinions expressed at all, just his. This last statement of mine may sound like a most dictatorially harsh way of doing things. It would be if we lived in a world where the absolute truth were not available. In such a world with no Truth with a capital T, everyone (just about) has an equally valid truth with a small t to express, and Dr's way of doing things would suppress truths from circulating. I do believe Truth (capital T) is available from God, but it's pretty rare. It looks to me that you and I disagree on this point. This may be why you avoided the list of errors that PFAL handled. My whole message is that God did select a man to hear His Truth and distribute it. This process had not happened in such an intense way in 2000 years, and we were privileged to sit in on it when we took PFAL. Opinion expression is a nice thing, but Truth distribution is much more important and needed. For that reason I'd resist your suggested method of running a class. However, all this is moot, since I believe Dr reached all that were supposed to hear PFAL. My message is not "PFAL is the greatest, let's distribute it." There was once a time I believed that and did that. My message now is to grads of that class and it is: "PFAL is the greatest; let us grads master the written form of it, the collaterals, and then see what God would have us to do." If you still have your collateral books, I think you are sitting on a gold mine of Truth. We grads did not absorb all that God gave by revelation to Dr and he put into those books. We forgot much, and much slipped by us unnoticed when we first took that class, especially in the books. Here is an example. You post ended with: "...and for heavens sake allow a variety of translations, not just King James." If you look hard, you will find that many translations were utilized within those books that came with the class. It was only in the running of the video or tape that one version was used: the KJV. This was done for various reasons. As a result of my exposure to PFAL I have over 15 versions in my library. I've heard others complain that Dr constrained us to only the KJV, but many other versions appear in his books.

Galen, How did Peter and James and John know that it was Moses and Elijah on the Mount of the Transfiguration with Jesus? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I don't know about about Elijah, but they immediately recognized Moses because he looked exactly like Charlton Heston.

:D--> I get it! ...Holy Bartender! :D--> :D--> :D-->

alfakat, I spent a lot of time talking to a lot of others before coming here... 16 YEARS to be approximately exact. :D--> I asked a large sample of well over a hundred people, even two hundred, what they knew, when they decided, how they decided, etc. You would have been one of them had you responded to my e-mails to you in 1999 or 2000. Maybe you didn't know that. Being childless and self employed I spent tons of time polling people and discussing these things in those many years before I came here and with the harsh findings I've reported. Once here, I again found that few had thought many things through very deeply. Most decisions were based on emotion, rumor, peer pressure, fears, tradition, anecdotal happenstance, and whatever their favorite leader did. Are there exceptions? Sure, but I'll bet not too many and not too intense.

alfakat, Here in SD I shopped arond for 11 years. I crossed all the boundary lines that were set up by the quick decisions of nearly every else in the county. I only saw ONE other grad at those meetings crossing the lines like me. All the CES people stayed exclusively within CES. All the TWI people stayed exclusively within TWI. All the Geer people stayed exclusively within the Geer group. I only saw this one other grad cross all those bondary lines like me, and for as long as I did, and he now attends the same fellowship I do, and he believes in PFAL just like me. Out of all the grads in SD county I KNOW that only two shopped around for a substantial amount of time. I'll admit you may be right, and that other counties may have had their sliver of a percentage of careful shoppers also. But I wouldn't bet on it.

alfakat, No, but God has foreknowledge. That's why I put the word "risk" in quotes in that post. The WHOLE REASON for qualifications is to minimize risk. God can weigh one outcome against another like no one else can. God got His job done, the books got out, and hardly anyone died. Had He not set up PFAL MANY would have been dead. Remember this was the wild 60's and 70's when we OLGs signed up.

DaddyHounddog, Yes, I'm sure. No one has done ALL the things that Jesus Christ did and greater. People still get sick and die. Confusion reigns in the churches and that's why there are so many. God most certainly IS bigger than TWi or any other ministry. But God's Word is as much God as God is God. That's why Jesus is Lord, because he is the Word made flesh. *** alfakat, I would agree with you IF it were the case that Dr didn't get an abundance of revelations. If he DID get revelation, then your method would be folly. I bet he got those revelations based on a long cool assesment, 27 years worth. Most people here placed their bet he did NOT get those revelations very shortly after their dandruff was shaken up. I saw here in SD, in 1987, HUNDREDS of grads make up their minds as whether to stay or not, or which splinter to sign up with, after NO shopping around and in a very small span of days.

Those qualifications are for who WE select as a PASTOR or LEADER. When GOD selects a SPOKESMAN He is allowed to take "risks" we otherwise shouldn't. It's too late for anyone to reject Dr as a pastor, and the spokesman's job is done.

I'm not surprised I was quoted out of context, either. :)-->

I agree, oldiesman. And quoting JB's private communications like that is no way to gain credibility... with anyone. It puts a face of deceit on all of us here. I know I will think twice now before I ever send a intended-to-be private e-mail to GJ. I was tough on JB when he got nasty to me, but I pretty well calmed down when I was done. I congratulate JB for what good he tried to do, and I hope they at TWI try again. But many here have given them a reason to give up.