Mike

I see English becoming more and more the lingua franca of the world every day. This is due to the successive influences of Hollywood, CNN, Microsoft, and the Internet. Nearly every educated person in the world now speaks, or can at least hear English. We're at the other end of Babel as the age is ending. As far as fearing me and my message, I see it in other splinter people much more than here at GSC. As far as having a concern that my message might be believed by new GSC readers, I see that here as rampant.

I can see your point when I adopt your point of view that the author of PFAL was a man. Can you see, though, that if the true Author was Jesus' Father, and then remember that with God (and the seat at His right hand) there is no time, then our ability to imagine should not be trusted? God showed Jesus the future fruit of his suffering; He set before him the joy to endure the cross. God showed the future paradise to Paul, so he too could endure his persecutions. These showings were not mere snapshots, but intense learning situations transcending time as we know it. These things defy our concept of time. It is to these learning scenes I refer, and I do that only for motivational purposes, not for linear 5-senses translation. We can't do that at all, but we CAN gird the loins of our minds and get busy learning of the same Author that Jesus and Paul learned from.

I was talking about laughing WITH it! :D-->

. . . I owe it all to window cleaning! :D--> . . .

Vickles has added more weight to my argument calling for more tolerance and patience in our waiting on TWI's Apology Department for definitive pronouncements. But it's been a while, so let me review a bit. First of all, I too have to learn some forgiveness for those who hurt me deeply. I'm not saying to anyone here at GSC, "Snap out of it! Get busy and forgive those TWI leaders." I know first hand the daily struggle that can come when forgiving my enemies graduates from the printed page to real life. I have some work of my own in snuffing out fantasies of apologies being made to me that decimate the apologists. Plus I can say that I can relate with both sides of this equation. I see multiple considerations delaying my own apology department from reaching out and touching someone in a few cases. Far from TWI volume and intensity, the principles are the same for me as them. Not only being relatively few, my offenses were quite slight against these people in my past, prior to my "getting it right." YET I still have some difficulties with the timing and the situations available for my apologies to come immediately. I can easily imagine TWI's difficulties being compounded to massive proportions due to intensity of the offenses and corresponding emotions, and then adding in impediments due to their need to shield their innocent children and new members. Now Vickles has added in the lawsuit angle so the stakes are even higher still. Someone imagined this would mean total dismantling of the assets. As I think that scenario through, I ask how many relatively innocent people would be caught up and hurt there if apologies were dished out according to the demands of people here who claim their hurts are now in the past. It's hard for me to imagine Jesus Christ, after his resurrection and recovery, to demand crippling reparations of Judas and Peter, saying "Ok, you guys, you want me to forgive you for treason and denial? Just step right inside this giant meat grinder and I'll throw the switch. When you come out the little holes at the other end then all will be forgiven." Vanquishing to the end can be just as wrong as the original injury. Plus it sets up the cycle of repeat revenge, like the treaty of Versailles set the stage for Hitler's rise to power. We need not trust history books' treatment of events of nearly a century ago. We've actually seen this cycle with our very eyes as Chris Geer did the meat grinder routine on Craig, Howard, and Don. What eventually followed was very Hitleresque. TWI's reaction to Geer was to very tightly encircle the wagons, along with many internal offenses. Sure, those offenses were huge, but at least we can see why the wagons were circled, and it's not too much of a stretch to understand why they still are. But I do see the insular tension there is less that it was ten years ago, and less than it was two years ago. In the past year I've seen several significant developments to encourage my continued patience. *** Another point, going back to the POP years. Craig, Howard, and Don had given an oral apology of sorts, then a written apology by signing the POP, ant then a series of reparations in handing over power and installing Geer men as BOTs. And what was given to them in return? Geer & Co. kept shoving them into the meat grinder EVEN AFTER the BOT did all that!!! There's got to be an institutional memory of that scene which holds back apologies with an intense grip! I think demanding TWI compliance to a grueling performance for what some want as comparatively mild closure is walking away from the love that Jesus Christ showed to Judas and Peter, as well as all of us. As we call to mind what God has and continues to forgive in us, He can then teach, show, and empower us in how to rise up and love our enemies, and our spiritual family even more.

Oakspear, Ahh yes, what a tangled web we weave! Like you, I don't believe that English versions of the Bible are God-breathed, yet you and I depart when it comes to the originals. Then again, because you don't have a confusing investment in the notion of a "abstract-originals/concrete-versions" conglomerate, you and I can intellectually communicate and banter in areas where invested traditionalists are emotionally horrified and some even tongue-tied with me. I've sensed the same thing with Abigail, and the evidence is similar with her too. Because you are more relaxed with me, you can wryly spin a spoof of what goes on in my head that actually comes much closer to the facts than the hard worked product of serious analysts bent on protecting the innocents who might stumble in what they perceive is my destructive path. You're probably one of the few who can even read and get a laugh out of this post.

def59, Ok, I see better what you mean. Of the 4 objections you listed above, 3 of them are stated in ways I would not agree with. They mis-represent me and my stand. The third one is close, but highly abbreviated. However, for me to explain what I mean by that is more than lengthy. It involves explaining what it means for Christ to be seated at the right hand of the Father, and how our relationship with Jesus Christ is supposed to now be a spiritual one and not a natural 5-senses one. Explaining that is more than lengthy and time consuming. The explanation is rooted in that "Ubiquitous" thread, which was pretty long. Acts 1:11 and II Cor.5:16 (among others) indicate that our relationship with Jesus Christ is to be different than the one that was available in the 4 Gospels. Most people look for and yearn for a natural 5-senses type of relationship with him. If God wanted him to have that kind of physical visibility He wouldn't have willed that Jesus LEAVE the senses realm and ascend to His right hand, which is spiritual, not senses natural. Jesus' first coming was natural, his second is spiritual. Until all these things are understood, explaining what it means for him to learn from or teach PFAL is pretty much impossible, impossible that is without great study of PFAL. Maybe you can take my word for it that I call Jesus my Lord and that I believe in my heart that God raised him from the dead. THAT kind of statement is much more easy to understand than what I've seen and stated regarding him and PFAL.

Oh Tom! --> Here we go again with the paste jobs! Did you ever think that my self flattery was joking and could be in the same vein as Rush Limbaugh's bombastic style, i.e. radio shtick? *** Garth, Maybe the reason you don't like PFAL is because your reading skills are lacking? I thought I made it pretty clear in my two posts to HCW along with my multiply addressed post above those two last night, that what I had time for then was only a preliminary warm-up. I have much more of a set of responses to HCW's two posts here. I have hardly BEGUN to discuss these matters with him.

def59, One post ago you challenged me to answer you, then you state here that you won't listen to the answers. :(--> Could it be that maybe you don't understand my actual position regarding some of the objections you just listed? ...like ESPECIALLY the last two?

Hi Exy, :)--> I too have had the "pain" of boredom to blast through regarding the PFAL books. It was when I was shown that there were hidden things in there that it became more interesting. It was shortly after this "treasure hunt" idea was shown to me that I discovered that the very simple mental freedom stuff in BTMS had never totally worked for me BECAUSE I had never taken it seriously enough. So, since 1998 I've seen some very interesting hidden things, and many of the surface simple things are now taking root deeper in me and have more and more of a liberating effect. Before 1998, and after I had long since (1973) transferred corrections from BTMS to my Cambridge wide Margin KJV, I was bored silly with most of the volumes 1-5, but ESPECIALLY with that one. Even the title, "The Bible Tells Me So," offended me and sounded childish, because of that children's song. Now I look at my Blue Book and feel like a child myself, as we have discussed a few weeks ago. Now I read my Blue Book and marvel at how God snuck it into my library, and then shined a spotlight on it in recent years, right when I needed it most.

def59, Somehow I've spread myself a little thin these past few days by posting on too many threads. I have copied your three posts above to a backlog file so that this weekend I can try and get to them. Just about all of the points you brought up in these three posts have been handled over the past two years in my posting or a few others' posting, but I don't mind repeating them. It's good practice for me. Please be patient with my delays.

HCW, It's bedtime for me too. Here is a short response to one of your points, though. I lived in New Knoxville with JFW, a co-editor of the PFAL book, for two years in the late 70's. We maintained a best-friend relationship all the way up until late last year when he passed away. We talked by phone several times each year. During those two early years, and then in recent years I pumped him with many, many questions as to how the editing of Dr's material worked. We spent many hours discussing how I post here. He was a rare poster here too, but I never asked him his handle. In recent years I contacted KM, the other PFAL editor, and discussed many similar things in phone calls and e-mails. I have maintained a good friendship with DC, an editor of the Way Magazine, who also worked with Dr on his printed material, and my posts were intensely discussed with him. None of them supported my thesis presented here, but I learned much from them all.

excathedra, I wish I could help you break that association. Not to compare my anger at him with yours, but anger WAS there at times for me. The source of my pain was the converse of yours, but it was real pain. If it's any help, I was often ....ed at him, or at least disappointed with him in 1978, then again in the early 80's, and then again from the late 80's to 1998. By the late 90's I was often angry at him, having spent a decade seething over the John Scheonheit paper. When I look at how those associations were broken for me I wonder how it happened! I could change my thinking only when I discovered that the texts helped me. It was like a hole being punched in a tire full of air, and my rage just eased out.

Thanks shaz. I remember sitting in in the PFAL'77 class when Dr said the phrase "all without exception and all ...[pause]... WITH distinction..." Immediately after the pause there was quite a loud murmur in the croud. During the pause it was VERY quiet. Here's how the phrases occur in the books: all without distinction - PFAL pg 65,66 all with distinction -JCNG pg 94 (2nd ed.); GMWD pg 241 all without exception - PFAL pp 65,66,67,191; GMWD pp 18,153; ADAN pp 24,46 *** Bullinger uses the phrase "all without distinction" in "The Companion Bible" on page 1531 in the side note for John 6:44, and also on pages 109 and 110 of "How to Enjoy the Bible." The latter can be found on the Internet, and the former may be there too by now. *** I don't have any difficulty believing that Dr saw some things before seeing Bullinger. Why would Bullinger be the all seeing, all knowing Grand Poobah, and no one but him can see things? I can sit down with a person and a KJV and go through complete proofs of the Four Crucified With Christ and When Did Judas hang Himself with no notes, and using a clean Gideon Bible. When tradition is under suspicion, it's not that hard to see these things if time and place are carefully watched. I don't have any difficulty believing that Dr got very encouraged to see that Bullinger had previously seen what he had been working. There are several places where Dr mentions Bullinger's influence, like in a 1970 Family Camp called "How to Enjoy the Bible." Tapes of that camp were later released as Tapes of the Month in the 80's. Here is what Dr writes in an OUR TIMES Editorial from the May/June 1979 Way Magazine: "This is the way I worked God’s Word when I discovered the truth that Jesus Christ was crucified on a Wednesday and raised on Saturday. Finding truths like this made me “stand out like a sore thumb” in so-called Christendom. "For almost fifteen years, no one thanked me for what I taught. People did not accept much of my heart and life. When I shared with them what I had found in God’s Word, they would shout, “Heresy!” But Dr. E. E. Higgins told me one night after I taught at the LaSalle Hotel in Chicago that I taught like Bullinger wrote. Then she took me up to her office in the hotel and gave me her copy of How to Enjoy the Bible. Back in the early 1900’s, Bullinger had found and seen many of the things in the Word that I was finding. Reading his book was like getting a drink of cool water from a desert oasis. I still have a great respect and love for the work of E. W. Bullinger, which will stand as a monument until the return of Christ." *** I was told once that Dr had over ten different formats in which he taught the foundational class from 1953 to 1967. This meeting with Dr Higgins was somewhere in the mid 50's. Between that time and 1967 he experimented with these many ways of teaching, but in 1967 he settled on a format that roughly resembled Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible" for the first 9 sessions and with plenty of deviations.

Hi HCW, I had a feeling we'd be meeting about this. I'll be circling the field for a while so that you can, if you so desire, check up on some of my past posts on this subject. Actually there are probably too many. You came in late on this movie, so maybe I should fill you in on some of what's happened so far. Let me know if you want to get a rundown on where I'm coming from before we get into what you reported what Dr said. I was only kidding about the heavyweight match above. Humor is a way I lighten up myself for sure, and hopefully others, in these very intense debates that have been raging for just over two years now. Oakspear named them the MikeWars, but some of us have calmed down to have some pretty friendly exchanges at times, especially backstage by e-mail and PTs. If you'd like to talk about these things by e-mail that's fine too, as time allows. We can get right into the things you said Dr told you, or we can back track into what I mean about PFAL being God-breathed or why. One detail up-front: It's only the written form I am talking about, the books Dr put his name to and his magazine articles. I also seem to be limiting myself in my bet to Dr's books after 1971. This second qualifier is still in a state of learning. For practical reasons this is my best estimate of when Dr's written works reached a state of maturity ready for such a bet as I have made. I want to thank you greatly for you excellent job in dealing with the two spurious issues that constantly derail me here when really want to only discuss the written works. Other hot issues that rage here from time to time you have well doused, like the white supremacist one just today. If you want to expand on your post regarding you and Dr talking about this preferred issue I'm all ears.

Raf, alfakat, Oakspear, Tom Strange, TheInvisibleDan, I've been chuckling over this lineup all day, ever since I saw HCW's post, but had no time and was on the way out the door. I didn't know exactly who would show up in this lineup, but I KNEW it would be here. There may even be another one lining up with you guys any minute whilst I take pen in hand to ink this document. So do I have this straight? You guys are finally vindicated in all your debates with me because you now have a superstar heavy hitter on your side. Well, if it's the case that you all are only too happy to take HCW's word on this matter, does that mean you also take his word as a final judgment on the plagiarism issue, and the sex issue? Time and time again, a scenario has played out here where I take three steps forward with the God-breathedness of PFAL, only to be forced two steps back with the distractions of these two hot issues. HCW has put forth a set of very forceful arguments that, like David and others in ancient times, a man can be messed up in one area, and totally together in another. I have made this point many times here before, but HCW made it in ways that took many here by surprise. I'm not sure, but it seems that VERY few have even tried to argue him back on this. I don't read all his posts, but I did see his debut week's worth plus a few more and I was very impressed. When I collect together in one place all my arguments on this subject, his will be certainly included, along with posts by certain others here like Oldiesman, What the Hay, Galen, and johniam. Forgive if I've left anyone out of this list of "Select Subject Allies." I'm tired right now and had a long day of manual labor. I'd love to add any names that come to mind later. I'll also be collecting arguments from these same posters on the plagiarism issue, and again HCW will be a prominent contributor. So, if I get this right, I suppose I should get less of the diverted argument strategies from you folks in the future as I press on in projecting my life's bet argument of PFAL being God-breathed. This is a very common strategy against me, to resort to a man's character and issues of sex and plagiarism, when what I want on the table is the TEXT of PFAL. It happened just last night again, or maybe that was this morning. I won't be betting any money on this supposition, though. *** So, how do you folks think I'll deal with this post from HCW? Oakspear has ventured forth a few guesses, one of which is drifting in the right direction, but still misses. Actually he is pretty close in the way he proposed multiple strategies. I'll set forth a hint. My strategies have been posted here before, albeit in abbreviated forms. One of them was even posted VERY recently, like within the last 24 hours. Some of them have received a bit of a detailed treatment at times. Maybe by searching through all my 3700 posts you all can ancipitate my tantrics and my strateegery. Or maybe you just will read very closely my very recent posts for an minor expansion of this hint. Now, if you don't mind, I've got a few other planned posts to write. I owe sky4it, What The Hay, and you TheInvisibleDan a response each, and the TWI website thread one too. These may take a little time. I like to keep everyone in suspenders before a heavyweight belt match.

Oldiesman, You're absolutely right. Dr often told us he collected it from places God guided him to. Those grads who fell into the hero worship mode regarding Dr, but who never seriously worked the material he taught, were easily seduced and set up to believe he came up with it all, like a divine dictation, or that he researched it all out from scratch, whatever that means. Those who bought the hero image are the ones most bitterly disappointed when he fell short of their expectations. Those who worked the material were properly impressed back then and will be even more impressed when they work it again.

shazdancer, This subject has come up several times here, AND I've been working it for a couple of years now. Anyone can operate the Advanced Search function under the "FIND" button to see what I've handled so far. I do remember the pregnant pause in Dr's delivery of that phrase in PFAL '77. He did change it there, but then again, that class mysteriously disappeared from sight in many significant ways, as I've noted in my first post in the "Masters of the Word-..." thread. I do NOT remember him saying anything to the effect that the Research Department made him say it that way in the PFAL'77 class itself, though. Is your memory of him saying that one that places it within the class, or on it's periphery, like backstage, or at lunch? You have proved to me your having a memory better than most, so I'm very interested in your answer to this question. *** Again, in my first post in the "Masters of the Word-..." thread I note that at lunch just days before the start of that '77 class Dr indicated that he had been arm twisted to designate that class as the replacement for the '67 film class. In that dramatic lunch meeting he pulled the plug on those plans, though. It seems that his changing of his handling of "all" in PFAL'77 was one where the arm twisting was successful, but Dr went ahead after the class and yanked it from circulation. *** This reminds me of another place where arm twisting got Dr doubting his own original revelations by those doubters with which he was surrounded. In his last live teaching of PFAL at Gunnison he re-arraigned his teaching of Eli Eli, OR SO I'M TOLD. In recent years I've consulted with one TB, formerly of the Research Department. He went on to study the Aramaic and found abundant documention for the original '67 approach that Llamsa and Dr used. He will someday write it up. Another reseacher I'm in touch with has debunked the doubts that arose concerning the interogative nature of the "Eli Eli" cry. Both of these men have seen that the Research Department got on some sloppy trails toward the end of Dr's life. *** The PFAL book was changed in minor ways over the years to correct typos and a few other things, and this is reflected in the printing designations placed in the opening pages. HOWEVER, neither the "all without distinction" nor "Eli Eli" were altered. One of the keys I am using in working "all without distinction" is I'm searching out ALL the places where these words and similar ones come up in the writings. The "all" issue comes up in different ways in JCNG and in GMWD. Plus I'm slowly working all the places where Dr used the word "exception" and where he used "distinction." This other key is one I insist on using: go slow. These matters are way too important to shoot from the hip impulsively. I'm also working the OTHER places where Bullinger brings it up besides in "How to Enjoy the Bible."

def59, I haven't had time to go there, but I just took a peek. It does look like some opinions are being exchanged, and some look pretty hot too! I remember Dr saying a very small amount on that subject, or a similar one. Something about everything returns to its original state, or something like that. I've been on the lookout for more on that topic in PFAL, but so far nothing has surfaced. I'll let you know is some does.

dmiller, I woke up this morning with an important addition to my post to you of last night. One of the greatest benefits of God's 1942 intervention in matters theological, is our liberation from the need to lean on scholars for guidance in the very difficult areas of ancient manuscripts, languages, history, geography, etc. All of that is done for us in God's PFAL revelations in written form. I have often posted on this liberation from academia in one way or another, but I wanted to specifically bring it to your attention. We still must apply ourselves to rightly divide PFAL, but we no longer need to check out everything written there with scholars. If we can read English, we can gain as full an understanding of God's Word in PFAL as our intellect is capable of. In the days when we relied on scholars, both inside the ministry and outside, to verify things, we still had to be able to read the English reports they would furnish us. And how many times do those scholars write in English somewhat above our heads? Too many times for me! Taking our ability to read English and coming back to PFAL and focusing it now totally on that relatively simple reading material is all we need to do to see all the promises of God come to pass.

def59, No, NO! NOOOOO! What many here have been saying is that PFAL is NOT what vpw had to say, but what others had to say!!!!!! It's splashed all over this website! I'm telling you that Dr told us often that he gathered much of the PFAL material from others, who go it from God; God supervised the project. *** You wrote: "PFAL is VPW. they part and parcel one and the same. It is a book of his views, life experiences and opinions. It his understanding of the what the bible says." That's YOUR opinion. My opinion is, no, God guided him AND his editorial staff to strip out all of that. Who's opinion is right? If you want to ask others' opinions on this, you may get a majority vote, but that would STILL be just an opinion. We need to dig deeper to see the answer, to get God's overriding opinion which is the Truth. The only way to do that is to open the books and ask God as we study. Or we could ask a trusted scholar, like I was discussing with dmiller, and have some more to post on following this post. But then we only have a scholarly opinion, which is still human, and still far from God's opinion. *** You wrote: "The same can and should be said about what Charles Stanley writes, Chuck Swindoll writes or Joseph Smith wrote." How about saying it about Paul? Could you say that Paul's epistles are just Paul ad his opinions about Jesus and the Old testament? Many do say just that, even in churches. What makes Paul's writings more than opinion? Here's what makes Paul's writings far above those of Stanley, Swindoll, and Smith: God gave Paul revelation. IT'S THE SAME WITH VICTOR PAUL.

dmiller, Suppose I did blaspheme the Son. Are you aware that Jesus said that the unforgivable sin was NOT attached to blesphemy of the Son, only the Holy Spirit? Look it up. I suppose lots of Christians once wondered about Paul, a determined deprogrammer/killer of Christians, when he said that he was getting instructions personally from the same Jesus he had previously persecuted. *** This is rough stuff. I'd like to handle it as gently as I tried to do with def59 on the other proPFAL thread, but sometimes I don't quite know how to. Somehow over there it seemed to work. These matters are delicate because they strike right at the heart of life's most basic issues. Can I just get to the point, and then later smooth over any bruised ego I may incur? Maybe I just feel you can handle it, so here goes. *** Ok, you've just changed the subject. This happens a lot when I start making a point that hits home. I have before, and can handle your objections as stated, but let's recognize them as a change of the subject. And then let's wrap up the last subject before getting to your objections. May I infer from the fact you changed the subject that you do NOT have an unalterable standard? And may I infer from your choice to defer to scholars that that you therefore rely on others to do the work of lining things up to THEIR standard(s) for you? As soon as I nailed the alterability of your submitted standard you dropped that issue and brought in the scholars you trust to handle things for you. This immediately brings up the issue of how you chose your trusted scholars. Do you have an unalterable standard in this, or is it whoever impresses you at the moment. I would venture a guess that you wing it here too. To understand what i mean by "winging it" please refer to my discussion with def59 at: http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=9...07248#595107248 Might I at this point remind you that at one time you chose Dr as your trusted scholar? How do you know that the scholars you presently trust won't let you down too? I say this to hit home the extreme importance of these issue, and how easy it is to go wrong if we don't put all the resources of our intelligence into seeking God first. Many people trusted in Dr as a man, and paid little attention to the exact things he taught. They received only part of his message, and mostly enjoyed the social setting of TWI at that time. Then all hell broke loose. I avoided trusting him as a man, but I looked as close at his message as possible, always maintaining a "safe" distance. Maybe this is why I was less shocked by all the junk that came out, and was able to come back to the message. In all my posting I have maintained that the message in the written PFAL is what I exalt, that it was NOT the work of a flawed man, but that it was the work of the Perfect God, IN SPITE of the man's flaws. I do not trust in the man, but in the God Who gave him revelations. The written PFAl cannot be judged by looking at the man, only by reading the text. All of this homage to PFAL comes long after the man's death. He gets no rewards from me, nor from any grad who comes back to the work he had a part, only a PART, in producing. Your emotional turning away from the perfect message, only to turn to another set of personalities, will give you similar results in the long run: great disappointment. Scripture says cursed be the man who trusts in man. I know that you THINK I trust in a man, but I tell you it is you who are doing that. You trust in your ability to wing it, and you trust in the scholarly men your winging it has brought you to... lately. You forget that your winging it brought you to great disappointment in vpw. I suggest you find a written standard that you and the Father can work on together and alone. I suggest you choose written PFAL as your unalterable standard. You don't need the help of any scholars to dive into those writings. All the things you detest in vpw are absent from PFAL. The Father worked with vpw in spite of himself, and he will work with you too.

Tom Strange, You wrote: "wait a minute! first you say they're unalterable... then you say "well... mostly..." then you say they're unalterable... ...doesn't sound like a very sturdy table... sounds like... whatever meets your approval, based upon your advanced abilities... " I explained to Roy here once in a post that when I see what I think is a typo in PFAL, instead of correcting it with whiteout, or "fixing" it some other way, I take a breath and wait. I don't even write "typo" in the margin. What I do is write "?typo?" with two question marks in the margin. Then I allow myself to consider in readings to come, that MAYBE it was done on purpose, and I just didn't see the purpose yet. I don't think I have advanced abilities. I recognize the PFAL text as perfect and bigger than me. I never take issue with the teaching in PFAL, nor with the exact choice of words. I have MANY times stated here in posts that the revelation was perfect, BUT that there could creep in MINOR errors due to proofreaders and printers. Dr mentioned errors from proofreaders and printers in the film class, so I've mentioned them here OFTEN. In many of my discourses here I have NOT mentioned these persnickity details, much because my posts are already long enough. If you think that these TEENSY TINY errors, and my sometimes glossing over them, is your only way to defeat the message I have here, go for it. Most people following along here, whom you are so interested in protecting from me, will see that your arguments are largely defeated if you take that course, though. The errors in KJV and in all other versions are HUGE and FREQUENT. The typos and other errors of this conversation are MINOR and RARE.

Tom, I may be kooky :D-->, but I don't alter my PFAL texts. I take notes in the margins, but I no longer challenge Dr in any way, on any issue, and in that way PFAL is my unalterable standard. Ok, I admit, that there are a VERY small number of errors from the printers and proofreaders, but they are VERY few compared to KJV corrections, AND they are VERY trivial compared to KJV errors. The entire content of PFAL in my operations is truely unalterable.

But, Tom, as you decided to do what she asked you DID draw upon the storehouse of you mind, and in there somewhere it probably says to love your wife as Christ loved the church... ;)--> in addition to cartoons of frying pans and rolling pins... :D-->