Mike

socks, It was the FILM that I was referring to way above. I never saw a copyright notice in the film at all, but one did appear on the video format of it around 1981 or 82. When it did many discussions arose. It was a long time ago, so don't hold me to accuracy.

WordWolf, I'm not deliberately ignoring yor long post previous to the the others this morning and afternoon. I've not even had time to read it with all this responding to the other posts that I saw first, and that have engaged me on the fly. The gap in my posting today represents my leaving for a window cleaning job, which I'm about to do again. If you feel that there's some pressing issue in that post, and I don't see it soon please re-direct me to it. The same goes for any other posters prior to your long post. Abigail, I hope you're not in there feeling neglected again. ;)-->

socks, I was issuing a "what if" statement and citing no authority to do so, so I implied that I was issuing an "In my opinion, neither you, nor I , nor..." kind of statement, and not one of any definiteness. To satisfy you I will add "IMO" next time I say that of you.

Oakspear, I like and admire your ability to think critically and to reason, even though it IS only reason (BTMS p.23 bottom). You wrote with GREAT reasoning: "A. Give Vic revelation to write certain things, not telling him that they were already written by others. "B. Give Vic revelation to write certain things, telling him that they were already written by others [may I add "by revelation" here?). "C. Direct Vic to copy from other authors" These three possibilities have gotten years of pondering time from me, but for simplicity's sake I could only bring myself to mentioning to (B.) even though (C.) definitely occurs every time Dr quotes a KJV verse. So you think my God would be small to use small to use (A.)??? Did you know that similar things happen in science from time to time. It happens so much that one maverick scientist (still somewhat officially accepted though) named Rupert Sheldrake has come up with a fundamental theory to describe the phenomenon. Why would a magnanimous God use (A.) from time to time? To give Dr great confirmation that he was on the right track as Dr would find the previous texts, and that it was worth while to ignore the jeers and protests as he departed radically from tradition. We might call it the Higgins/Bullinger effect. I already know from my KJV that in the OT that this same magnanimous God often employed techniques that would not pass the kinds of tests your great reasoning powers might insist on, as well as mine, and as well as theology in general.

Correction: They both recognize the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS as authoritative, and they both recognize problems with all the copies.

I'm talking about God telling US the answer to your question of "...who's to say?"

socks, Where does it say in your accepted canon, the text that you might like to try and get onto the Table of Challenge worthily, that God has to say anything according to yor specifications? Actually I have found 90 places, all hidden in one way of another, where Dr says "Thus saith the Lord" in my Table of Challenge stack. Why hidden? So that this debate would occur AFTER the books were printed and distributed around the globe. Neither you, NOR I, nor any grad I know of, would have helped print and distribute those books had Dr said it for God the way you specify. We weren't ready spiritually to hear it that way, and it's still a challenge for you to accept it now. Simple obedience to Dr's final instrctions yielded the 90 references for me. It will for you too.

Raf wrote: "Interpretational. Who's to say either was right?" Answer: God can say. But theology doesn't accept revelation... I guess?

It always demonstrates false because your whole approach insists on it being false to begin with. Let me admit this: if I were to drop the postulate, then I'd see that you are correct, from human logic. But if you adopt the postulate, then you'd see that it is correct, from spiritual revelation.

No, it's not about me. If it were I'd have quit long ago and done something that garners some respect that I certainly don't get here. I mentioned this earlier in this thread... I think in my first post. I didn't write the book! If I wrote PFAL then I'd see your point and back off. But I didn't "come up" with PFAL. I simply recognized it as bigger than me, so I embraced it.

Has anyone thought through the scenario of the humble pie eating contest that should result IF this postulate is true? I'll bet this thinking through is too scary to carry out... to ego threating to ever entertain.

You have STILL have not thought it through with the postulate in mind. This is an unturned stone your ego can't allow to be looked under.

Yes sir, I most certainly GET my "ideas by assuming wierwille was correct." I'd call it a postulate, my assumption that PFAL is correct. Someone told it to me and I simply believed it. Well, maybe it wasn't so simple. There was 27 years of prior hearing that set me up to believe this. However this "getting" does not necessarily follow from an ad hoc definition. There are other ways of "getting" ideas than by definition. Indeed, my ideas follow from simple observation and applying priciples of God's Word after that postulate is firmly in place. I'm willing to bet my life that Dr had permission from the author....... that is to say, Dr HAD PERMISSION from the Author, from the Real Author, Who is God. I see that, if, IF, IF the written form of PFAL is God-breathed, then it all fits perfectly. If it is NOT God-breathed then I'm in a pickle. I get my confidence to bet my life from all that I see when I thoroughly think through these matters keeping in mind the postulate that PFAL is indeed God-breathed. Those who insist that they thought through the other side of this plagiarism issue never did think it through with this postulate in mind, nor were any other of the "issues" thought through keeping PFAL's God breathed status in mind. Those who lean on their puny proofs, pro or con, are doomed. The flesh spoutings of those who can't hear God's vote on whether He breathed PFAL will come to nought. *** I said that if PFAL is NOT God-breathed then I'm in a pickle. Actually, if it is not God-breathed then said pickle is nothing compared to the dire dilemma we ALL face, because in this scenario NOTHING is God-breathed in this world. Those who insist that the original manuscripts that their KJV is derived from are Authoritative have yet to place a hard copy of those originals on my Table of Challenge. Even if they could, they'd have to augment it with an Authoritative translation/version if it were to do any good for most of us. One more remote alternative to this ancient language/culture problem would be to place an Authoritative ancient languages textbook covering the range of beginning student to advanced PhD, along with a similarly ranged Authoritative orientalism culture/history text. But in this remote semi-solution most of us would not have the time/brains to do it all for ourselves, and we'd need an Authoritative Teacher to do most of that work for us. I'm sure lots of wannabe Authoritative Teachers would apply for the job, but I'm not so sure anyone here can come up with the above mentioned texts so we peons can do an adequate screening. I know that these wannabe Authoritative Teachers are right now clamoring for the job WITHOUT the Authoritative texts placed on my Table of Challenge, insisting that they themselves are authoritative enough already to derive the necessary texts from which they can teach us. They think that the abstract originals plus their expertise is enough for us peons. What the Hay nailed it with his pointing out their self aggrandizement motivations. So I don't buy it. I see no viable option to PFAL on My table of Challenge. These wannabe teachers haven't earned my respect, and they plummet in that regard further daily. I bet my life it's all done for us by God in a simple set of books, and the Authoritative Teacher has come and gone before any of us knew what happened. God covered for his flesh inadequacies and sin so that the Authoritative texts could be printed and distributed around the globe long before we had an inkling that we should screen out the teacher God had selected. Like I said to Abigail at beginning of my proPFAL-General thread, if it's not all in PFAL then where is it? My Table of Challenge is still lacking a serious contender for that hard copy of the Word of God. My study table is stocked.

Ridiculous - no Subjective - yes, and I admitted that. I think there were many first time students of PFAL who are not so citation minded. I still am when it comes to the great heart material of BTMS and all the other volumes. The PFAL book has a nice clean (subjective) look to it. I think it's anal retentive to insist on citations, and chucking the whole thing if they are missing. We're talking about GOD's FAMILY here! We're talking about hearts getting healed, not brains getting a cap and gown. I wonder how many people here sneered at the academic robes in some TWI ceremonies, and then insist of proper citations in the books? ...just a thought.

socks, I remember hearing in the early 80's that the reason the film class was FINALLY copyrighted was so that someone else would not be able to do it, and thereafter deprive us of the right to run it. A less vivid memory points to the reason it hadn't been done earlier was the cost. I can infer that the copyrighting of the books was easier and done earlier for the same reason as my vivid memory of the film class getting copyrighted. *** def59, Have you thought of the possibility that Dr's memory of the exact dates of his degrees may have been inaccurate? The reason I quoted that passage was to show that WW's memory of the tape was not so vivid. Have you thought of the possibility that Dr was not bragging about the reverse order of those degrees, but that it just happened that way by a quirk? It just happened that in that text I posted I bold fonted the words "it just happened" that Dr spoke just so that those skim reading it might be more likely to happen across them. But it just happened that you missed them. Maybe he wasn't bragging. Another point is that I don't have the time nor the interest to check into, this being a likely blind alley, but might there be a difference between the dates an institution grants a degree and the individual receiving it? I don't know but I don't care. This is moving far away from my area of interest, and more into the area What the Hay identified as self aggrandizement. I want to get my relationship with the Father cooking bigtime, not play detective bigtime with a lot of people who have little better to do than feel big as they play down the man who taught me that God is good. I choose to "beg off" this investigation. You can feel free to chase it off a cliff if you want to. How are you going to check the accuracy of that website's info you posted? Are you of the mind that if you see it on TV or on the Internet it must be true? How are you going to verify that website's info? Fly to the degree granting institution itself? What if you hold in your hands the records themselves? How do you know THEY are true? Can institutions make honest mistakes? I took the AC in 1975, yet TWI's records show that I did not. Their records are simply wrong. What does it all prove in chasing all this down? Gads! It reminds me of how HCW rammed WWs words back in his face about that photo of India. It's all a colossal waste of time. The same time could be much better spent reading God's Word, even an approximation like KJV! How's YOUR relationship with the Father lately? If it's all that good, have you turned anyone else on to Him lately? Maybe you could witness to the records custodians at Princeton or Chicago. *** Raf, Where do you get your impression of plagiarism being plain wrong? From the world or from the Word? I get my understanding of intellectual ownership from Deut. 29:29, where do you get yours? Who said anything about the passages that Dr supposedly got from other men being not God breathed? Did you read the section in "Light Began To Dawn" where Dr ascribes some of their ideas as being by revelation? It's here: http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=9...03936#585103936 *** I reserve the right to not waste my time in what I perceive as wild goose chases. If I didn't the adversary could distract me forever. I choose to beg off some challenges, especially ones that bore me.

What the Hay, I agree. You have nailed the ignoble side of the academia and marketplace needs to define plairgism. There is also a noble side, but it's only temporary until paradise rules.

I gotta go to work. What the Hay, can you check your PTs please?

I simply refuse to adopt your fundamental perspective. My position is not ad hoc. I thought these things many years ago, and am still finding ways to express them better.

Actually, I have stated that where students are competing for a degree, or professors competing for jobs, or universities competing for reputations, that plagiarism is wrong. Let me now add when researchers are competing for government grants it's wrong. When the context is God's family and blessing others then GIVING is the big deal. When the context is within the 4 types of areas mentioned right above, then RECEIVING is the big deal, and plagiarism cheats some out of their just due. In God's family no one gets cheated. We in give in God's family without the focus on what we receive, when we receive it, or who we receive it from, and God sees to it we receive what we are due. In academia the receiving is paramount. In God's family the giving is paramount.

Yes, I do have to draw the line somewhere. I get tired, or bored, or other things take a higher priority. At least I admit it.

I never have recognized organized religion as Christianity or God's family. I see the organizations in your links as very much like universities or schools. They are a different kind of academia or a social clubs. AGAIN, you take rules that apply in those denominational institutions and apply them to a completely different situation: God's family. Dr told everyone up front MANY TIMES that he put it together from other sources.

def59, I saw the pattern of your posting this morning. You're hopping from one thread to the next without reading what's there, and just volume posting your thoughts without taking any time to think through what's there. PLEASE, slow down and get some answers.

Yes, I realize a lot of this. I think you're really grabbibing at straws. It looks desparate to me. You're jumping all over the place. Research Geek and his wife actualy WENT to the place, Pikes Peak, and collected first hand data. He posted it here. If you can't find it let me know and I'll link you. I'm not interested in that link you posted. I don't trust those people at all. I don't even think they're grads. Plus I can only handle so much at onece. In the ROA transcript post above you Dr handles the college taught errors he LATER rejected. Again, it seems you are not reading the other items I post. You're missing tons and expecting me to re-post everything just for you in responses to you. Please get some reading under your belt. You're not making your self look good in all that your're missing right under your nose.

def59, Did you read "Light Began to Dawn" from the link I provided above? Here it is again: http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=9...03936#585103936

Yes, it IS nice to know which men to trust with the accuracy of God's word. The thrown out texts were of theologians who were spouting off their own ideas, or so they thought. The men that Dr worked with did not teach him their own ideas, but they gave him what God had given to them. Dr listened to JUST GOD in deciding which men to learn from. After Dr had received some teaching from these men he listened to JUST GOD as to what parts to accept and which parts to reject. I get the impression that you have not read a lot of my responses to others above. This is a repetition of what I said very recently. You wrote: "If a man taught him, then it wasn't God." I just got done handling this Apparent Contradiction with Oakspear, just two posts above this one.