Mike

WordWolf, You wrote: "vpw stated at ROA '79-and this is on the tapes-that he completed the requirements for his Doctorate before he completed the work for his Masters. The obvious implication of this is that it was easier to complete the Doctorate, which means it had easier requirements." It's not at all obvious to me that the implication you draw is the only one. But I won't bother with that. I think your memory of that section of Dr's teaching at ROA '79 is off. You might want to wonder how may other memories have dimmed and distorted with time. Here is a transcript of that passage in tape #2 from that ROA: "And it is only by God's multiple grace upon grace that I stand here at this teaching platform tonight declaring to you that the Word of God is the will of God, that it means what it says and that God says what He means and He has a purpose for everything He says where He says it, why He says it, how He says it, to whom He says it, when He says it. Because, ladies and gentlemen, there was a time I did not believe the words "holy" or "Bible" on the outside cover. And I was born and raised in a great Christian family, right here on this location. Great father and mother. Well what brought me to the time that I disbelieved the Bible? My teachers. That's how you get there. Can't go beyond your what? That's right. And so through the years as I was attending theological seminaries I got talked out of the Word. At the University of Chicago Divinity School, they just hashed the Word of God to pieces. Had nothing left. They talked about interpretations, they talked about miths, they talked about the five arguments for the existance of God. You know, the tealogical, the cosmological, all of that stuff. And so I came to the place that I had severe doubt about the integrity and accuracy of God's Word. And then, finally, after I graduated from Princeton with my masters degree...and it's sort of neat. Do you know that I had my masters in theology before I had my bachelor of divinity? How could you pull that one off? Oh he did. But I had finished all my work for my bachelors and I'd gone on and finished my masters and it just happened at Princeton we graduated a week earlier with my masters before I went back to Lakeland Seminary up there to get that diploma they handed out." I haven't checked this transcript out with the tape. I received it from a friend, and one whom I trust to get it accurate. If it's not accurate I'll stand corrected and let him know as well. In the meantime I'll place my bet with this transcript over anyone's memory, including my own. Look at the beginning of this quote, too. It's just one of the many places where Dr admitted that he didn't deserve to have the job God gave him.

Oakspear, Yesterday you asked me where in PFAL did Dr cite his sources. You also asserted to me that Dr since Dr said that God taught him, that must imply that Dr did NOT get it from any men. Let's go back to our beginnings, the basics, the film class. In Session 3 (segment 15), in the topic of Receive/Retain/Release we heard this: "The reason the Dead Sea is so dead is because it has only an inlet no outlet. The reason some people are so dead spiritually is because they have only inlet no outlet. They do not give. As you give you receive. As you receive you must give for it just works like this. As I receive God's Word I give it out, as I give it out I receive. "Many years ago God said to me once, HE'd TEACH ME the Word like it had not been known for centuries, if I would teach it. I thought that was a pretty good idea until I really got into the depth of the Word, then I found out that as I taught it nobody believed it anyway cause they already had preconceived ideas on the accuracy of God's Word. But I learned this that as long as I kept God's Word He kept filling me. He kept giving me more." Ok there we heard an abbreviated account of the 1942 promise. Later in the class, in Session 10 (segment 60), just after he goes through the 5 accounts in Acts we heard this: "Five records in the Word of God. You talk about questing, researching? I ran all over the country. I must have spent, five thousand, six thousand dollars in train fare, bus fare, air fare, motel rooms, everything else, trying to receive the power of the holy spirit into manifestation. Every place I ran, they told me -- some of them told me it wasn't for me, others said it died with the apostles. Some of them said, 'Well, we can help you.' "But I never received, until, one day, A MAN TAUGHT ME the accuracy of God's Word and told me that it was something that God had already put within me. All I had to do was know what to do with it, how to bring it out. And then I too spoke in tongues, the wonderful works of God. And, when I spoke in tongues, I magnified God. That's what they did in Acts 2:4. This is what they did in Acts, at the household of Cornelius, they magnified God." So here we have an Apparent Contradiction, right there in our first exposure to Dr's story of how he learned. In Session 3 he says GOD WOULD TEACH HIM and DID TEACH HIM, in Session 10 he says A MAN TAUGHT HIM. Which is it? If we were alert to this AE we'd either chuck the whole thing... or maybe dig deeper, and then find that it was both. God led Dr to the right men, AND God taught those men as well. Why can't people remember these simple things that we were exposed to right up front in the film class? Why weren't they even noticed in the first place? That should have sent up red flags! Well for some of us who were serious students it did, and we dug deeper, and we resolved apparent contradictions like this one. There are SO many things like this that either slipped right by many of us, or that got forgotten as time went by and we hung out with people who only bad mouthed our past experiences. The critics of PFAL have been intellectually inbreeding for how many years now? It's time to come back to PFAL and get it right. It's not too late! Learning is an exciting adventure.

It seems this General thread has become the de facto Plagiarism thread I had planned. I have a question to ask of all those who have challenged me on this plagiarism issue. In the past ten to fifteen years, have any of you encountered ANY opposition to these plagiarism charges? Is this the first time you have heard the many ideas I have posted here? If so, where did you encounter any opposition on this issue? It's my impression that none of you have ever debated this issue outside of running into me. It's my impression that no one here has spent any time pondering these new ideas of opposition, and that everyone has no memory whatsoever of Dr's many citings of his sources, nor of his explanations of how God guided him to these sources, and HOW God taught him what to teach and write. Don't you think these things I post should have been in the mix of your considerations all along. I think that these matters have gotten only one-sided treatments and very little thought. Isn't this precisely what is often complained of as a TWI experience: precious little thinking through of all the facts and from all angles?

What did you post?

Oakspear, These are some more thoughts on who led you wrong. Someone wrote me an e-mail a few weeks ago and said that they thought Dr never had an original thought. Acually, this is EXACTLY what Dr taught in the Advanced Classes during the 70's. He taught that ALL "original" thoughts actually come from someone else, and can be ultimately traced back to God. He taught that this is true in art, science, literature, and philosophy. The way this teaching went was: oftentimes God would teach one of His people some new thought, the devil would get a hold of it, and reveal it spiritually to one of his people. The idea of originality of thought is a man-made distortion of the truth. Does anyone remember this? Does anyone think that B.G. Leonard had any original thoughts? I don't. He had his sources too. I see here the same kind of erronious hero worship that was once directed at Dr is now being directed at B.G. Did B.G. tell his students that he gathered his ideas from others? I don't know if BG admitted to this, but I do know that Dr OFTEN told us that he gathered them from others. Dr mentioned B.G. many times as one of his sources. These are things that many have forgotten. It could be that most of top leadership forgot these things in their hero worship of Dr, or failed in some other way to convey them to us. It wasn't Dr's fault that he got "credit" for coming up with original thoughts. Claiming credit was the exact opposite of what he taught us regarding his "originality." He frequently said that he'd pick and choose from many sources. From B.G. Dr used some material and tossed out other material. Which ideas of B.G's to loose and which to pass on to us was done by revelation. Which teachers besides B.G. Dr selected to learn from was also done by revelation. This he taught us often. By 1982 he was somewhat out of the loop, and many frauds were perpetrated by his renegade leaders. I know of only a very few things where Dr said that he got something directly from God. He often told us that he "put it together." He got a piece here, a piece there, and put them together. You were definately led wrong, but not by Dr. Wierwille. There are many things like this that we need to re-learn. Learning is an exciting adventure.

Wordwolf, Without even checking out the links on your mirror thread, just by reading the URLs I can see most are universities. After the links you list areas where plagiarism is an important breach of conduct, and they are ALL academic areas. Why don't you see that in God's family different rules apply? How about Deut 29;29 and intellectual ownership?

def59, You wrote: "...didn't you ever write a term paper?" Again, you're confusing, like MANY others, the proper way to deal with sources in academia with the proper way to deal with them in God's family. *** You wrote: "Funny how the outside sources dried up after 1965. Wrong. You are guessing or have a bad memory. What about JCPS and Dr. Martin from Pasadena and his great insight into the star of Bethlehem? *** You wrote: "So lets not let people think for themselves, by actually RESEARCHING the Bible and the teacher, let's let them only think what Wierwille says." Please see my response to Abigail above. There's plenty of thought required in rightly dividing PFAL and in applying it. *** You wrote: "Wierwille called his minstry a biblical RESEARCH and teaching ministry. Why the fear of actually seeing what vpw's sources had to say?" There was no fear. You're making it up. He cited his sources. He also told us on numerous occasions towards the later phase of his ministry (again see my response to Abigail for some on the earlier phases) that research meant re-searching out what had already been taught to him by God. I research the PFAL texts all the time, and I have to do a lot of thinking for myself in the process. You are confusing research with discovering from scratch. Somtimes in academia the two are similar, but with these truths God reveals things to whom He selects.

Oakspear, You wrote: "Where in the supposedly canonical PFAL does he "cite his sources"? Where in RHST does he say that whole sections are copied word-for-word from Stiles?" Sometimes it was on the dust jacket of the PFAL book and others. Sometimes it was in the final pages for paparbacks under the title "About the Author." I'd count Elena Whiteside's book as authoritative where Dr was quoted. Dr approved of that in-house publication. Where does God say that in His family (not academia, not the marketplace) these kinds of details must be included? I think they are best not included for beginning students. As they progress they can hear more details on tapes or live. Remember the context is not academia and not the marketplace, but God's family. *** You wrote: "For that matter where does he admit, in print, on tape, or in anyone's recollection, that the original PFAL class, which his wife said in her book was initially called Receiving the holy spirit today was really BG Leonard's class on the gifts of the spirit?" What do you mean "really?" Some say it's "really" Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible." It can't be both. Dr took some from one source and some from the other, and still more from unmentioned others. He omitted some material from each, and put it all together. He TOLD us this. *** You wrote: "The only citing of sources that he does is to claim that he learned from some of these guys. There was never any admission by Wierwille or by his successors that he quoted extensively without attrribution." If Dr operated in academia or the open marketplace he'd have to do what you demand here. He did not operate in that context. You are applying rules to him that don't apply. *** If God revealed certain passages to Kenyon, God still is the ultimate source and can tell Dr to use it too. God's the owner and whatever he reveals belongs to the whole family. Deuteronomy 29:29 "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever..." There's your ultimate truth on intellectual ownership. *** You quoted me with: "Whoever led you that way led you wrong. It wasn't Dr and that's for sure." Then You wrote: "Really? the guy who claimed that God taught him the "Word" like it hadn't been taught since the first century didn't lead me to believe that?" Why did you not allow Dr to properly lead you to the whole truth on this matter? Why did you not take into consideration the additional data regarding HOW God taught him? You assumed that Dr said that God gave it to him by dictation, and Dr never said that. He gave the details and you ignored those details. Or maybe some other leader wrongly abbreviated how that teaching process worked for you and you believed him and still ignored Dr's additional details. Why didn't you hear all the times Dr gave the details as to HOW God taught him by guiding him to other men, and Dr selected some of their teachings and "put it all together"??? That tape "Light Began To Dawn" was available in the bookstore all that time. Maybe you didn't care back then and were happy with your abbreviated understanding of the learning process God took him through. Please take the time now to catch up on what you missed. Try this for "Light Began To Dawn: http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=9...03936#585103936 Dr cited his sources. He told us God taught him in many ways. One of the big ways is that God led him to these sources, and then God also led him to only take this but not that from these sources. God told him to change a few things. God taught him to put it all together. Some things God inspired Dr to first speak on a tape and then later it was worked into written form. I don't know of any places where Dr said he got anything by word for word dictation. He might have said that for some items of text, but I can't remember any right now. I do remember that in two places Dr said that revelation was usually discussed first, and then put into written form.

Abigail, You wrote: "Gee, Mike, I feel ignored and neglected." Aw shucks ma'am. Please allow me to spread my coat over this mud puddle for you, and I'll escort you across the street and back into the cafe where we can talk about what's on your mind. Ahhhh that's better. A little hot coffee to warm us up. Please remind me when we're done to not put that coat back on, ok? You wrote: "But Mike, I am told that it is my job to study, even VPW said to make it my own. If I don't study all of the avenues possible I am simply taking another man's word for it." Study WHAT? Make WHAT your own? All us grads know that no version is authoritative. It's a good place to start though, and that's how it went in the early days. Before there was much PFAL in written form, we were to study our KJVs to the best of our ability USING the PFAL keys the best we knew them. Some students could go into the ancient languages, but the same principles applied. It was right and proper to do this and make it, as just defined, our own in the sense that we could verify what Dr did teach us about receiving into manifestation speaking in tongues and understanding the other things he set forth. The major authoritative text was the ancient text, and we used it to check out vpw to the extent possible. As the years progressed and God taught Dr more and Dr put more into written form. Still our focus was on the KJV and the original scriptures the best we could get them. By the early 70's the books started coming out in near finished form. For the advanced leadership Dr started directing them to master those books in the mid 70's. By 1979 Dr included the AC students in his urgings to master what God had taught him and he had put into written form. In 1984 Dr included young believers in this urging to master written PFAL. At the end in 1985 he told everyone to do it, especially the top leadership. So "making it your own" slowly shifted from the non-authoritative ancient manuscripts/translations/versions to the authoritative PFAL texts. In the early years Dr urged people to check his teaching out, in the later years he urged them to master the final written forms of his teaching. *** If you were to study today all avenues possible, you'd be taking all those men's word for it who wrote those avenues, plus you'd be taking your own word for it in regards for how you selected those avenues (no one has time to check out all) and how you edited between them where they differed. If you were to only study the ancient scriptures, you'd still be taking the word of the copyists, the compilers, the and the translators, as well as your own word to bring it forth into modern understanding. There's no getting around it, you always have to take some man's word for it; the key is to get GOD's man to teach it to you and then you're not really taking that man's word for it. It took time for anyone to see that Dr was really God's spokesman. Some will to not believe this. I bet my life on God having selected vpw as His spokesman and putting His revelations into written form. I make PFAL my own by studying it. I am not taking vpw's word for it in the long run IF, IF, IF vpw is God's spokesman. If he is not God's spokesman, then who is? the KJV translators and versionators? You? Do you take your word for it as you pick and choose among translations, versions, and as you pick various Bible scholars who help you with a difficult verse or two or a thousand? Even with vpw, we have to be careful and not take him at his word when he was not speaking for God. Lots of people do just that in that they place lots of weight on what he told them in private. I won't place my bets there, though. Dr spent a lot of time and effort to purge his own viewpoints, along with a lot of other sources and helpers who also had spiritual abilities, to get the written form exactly what God wanted. If my bet is off then I go down with the ship. I firmly believe this is the safest ship. Take vpw at his word for it, his written PFAL word for it, and you're not taking a man's word for it, but God's. You still have to study PFAL carefully, and not take your own opinions of what's written there as truth. In your study, making this written Word of God of PFAL your own, you still have to apply all the principles of the class to rightly divide it. The good news is: it's a LOT easier than any other way, plus it's the only authoritative base on which to work. In a nutshell: study written PFAL, make it your own, and rest assured that you are not taking a man's word of it, because the real author is not vpw, but God. If you don't want to make this bet, then don't. I think that in most probability the only ones who are going to feel safe making this bet are those who saw him in action (but not too close per Jn 4:44), saw it work, and studied it a lot way back when. These are the people who have the most fighting chance to see through all the smokescreens. God can pretty well only draw these kinds of people. I love exceptions to this. Those who don't place this bet because they can't muster this kind of confidence are in a pickle. The more they examine the alternate bets they may or may not already have made, the more they are going to see that they are very flimsy, and in the long run they are taking some other man's word for it, usually their own or their own editing abilities, or their own ability to select other scholars to mix and match a conglomeration thereof. Does that help, Abigail? If you're looking for a proof before you commit to PFAL mastery, sorry. I think you will soon see the proofs, the personal to you proofs, start rolling after you commit to it, though. if you're happy with the proof rolling from some other way, fine. Maybe later you'll want to come back to PFAL and get the whole package in your shopping.

One more item on easy-to-followup references: When a person is interested in their relationship with the Father, and not being an academic researcher, heavily referenced text where every quote or close quote is footnoted is a bore and a visual distraction. I'm very glad that when I read my copy of "The Bible Tells Me So" or my PFAL book, that I can concentrate on the text and not the sources. I have a copy of each of my books for my own notes, but I often relax with a clean copy, and I know lots of reference numbers in the text, and footnotes at the bottom or at the chapter climax, would detract from the peace of mind I get, just me and the Father reading along. When I get to JCNG, JCOP, and JCPS there are lots of footnotes, but those books fall much more in the category of detailed academic studies. I'm glad Dr chose the formats he did for the different texts.

Oakspear, Whoever led you that way led you wrong. It wasn't Dr and that's for sure. I've posted here a 1965 transcript called "Light Began to Dawn" where Dr goes into great detail in citing his sources. He also went into great detail in "The Way Living In Love" circa 1972. I've heard him cite his sources on numerous later SNS tapes. One way he cited his sources prior to 1965 was to have them visit HQ and give their talks. In SOME respects the standards for citing of sources within God's family are TIGHTER. These tighter things I'm thinking of don't in any way line up with the usual academic/commercial criteria, but with another completely different one. For Dr to cite a source for easy retrieval by one of his students it could mean a harmful distraction for that student, in addition to taking away time from more profitable studies with Dr. I know that's not going to be well received, but: IF you adopt the frame of mind I have, that Dr was working closer with God (IN THIS AREA, IN THIS DEPARTMENT OF HIS LIFE) than anyone since the first century, then for one of his students to go to Styles, or Leonard, or whoever, said student would be exposed to their doctrinal error, and the easy-to-followup reference would downgrade the learning experience for that student. Dr had the 1942 promise to back him up in authoritative error filtering from these men, but Dr's students did not. IF Dr did not speak for God in this unique way then it would be the case, just like in academia, that easy-to-followup references would be a boon to a student or researcher. IF you think these things through from my perspective, like I exhorted Raf above, and NOT from your own, then it fits. Of course it will look like bull from your perspective. I know that.

:D--> I'll have to consult my agent. :D-->

What it means to cite sources in YOUR profession is different than what it means to cite sources in God's family. I look at the latter, you are STILL looking at the former.

He did cite his sources, and often. He did not do it in the format demanded in areas outside the church.

Raf, When you say it's wrong you are speaking from within your profession, which is like a mix of marketplace and academia. I can see how you think that way, but if you step outside of that arena in which you live and make your living, and look at it from inside God's family, can't you THEN see it as totally innocent like I do? I'm asking for a total shift in your viewing perspective, which you seem to be resisting. Your other item is well put: our major point of contention is the God-breathed status of the books. I find that whenever that point is discussed, however, as soon as I make some good points, posters from all over jump in and change the subject. The two major distracting agents they use, derailing the God-breathed discussion, are the plagiarism and sex issues.

Paw, Ok, I give up. But Mr Hammeroni thought it was funny too. Can I talk you into increasing the number of posters you'd trade me for? :D-->

Oops! This time I actually did post in the wrong thread. Multiple browsers open. Sorry

I said it was a hint hidden INSIDE a joke. I got the hint, and treated it as serious. It was a good joke too. :D-->

WordWolf, I'd like to set the record straight with you. We have some unfinished business to take care of. First of all, and most important to me, I want to apologize for loosing my temper with you near the end of last year. In the month following that I was semi-banned I had a lot of time to think through what I said and did. I could have just let it go, what you said that ticked me off, and things would have settled down just fine, I'm sure. *** Second in importance to me, is I want to thank you for your "clay" remark. Oddly, I only have the vaguest memory of your previous reference use of that word in reference to me. As I was still thinking through my temper tantrum when you recently brought that up, it became obvious that I was operating a selective memory in my appraisal of you and your position... something I loathe when I see it in others here regarding the forgetfulness towards all the vast good that Dr did do for us all. Anyway, thanks for that comment (twice), and it also got me thinking about my own selective memory. That said, I must mention that I have coarse clay in other areas of my life that I must plead guilty to. The precise scenario you mentioned never came up, but a few VERY similar ones (involving different people) did come up a few times, and your prediction was accurate. But in other departments of my life I was a miserable failure to temptation. HCW's recent post about his father's ability to maintain dignity and integrity in one department while failing miserably in another is VERY telling. It was (and is) the case for me, and it was the case for Dr (which HCW was implying), and it's the case for us all. *** Another item: I think you took that beating (only somewhat deserved) well from HCW. I had been thinking through the items above when that happened and I felt for you. *** THAT said, may I now ask a favor of you, old pal, old buddy, old friend? :D--> In your review of me and my position on that mirror thread, why not do a word search on my posts for the past two years on: plagiarism (and it's misspelled form), copyright, academia, academic, market, marketplace, original, idea, and other such permutations of these items? You could establish a greater reputation for objectivity (even greater than your twice mentioning of "clay") by dredging all those things up, and save me a lot of time. And, of course, any other interested readers can do the same.

Oops! :D--> I guess that wasn't so quick after all.

I do have time for a few quick ones. :)--> I was going to try and save this for a separate thread, but recently two posts caught my eye and I want to respond while they are fresh, plus one post from last October also fits in well Oakspear wrote (with my bold fonts) on this thread above: "The claims of plagarism are not spurious, they are real. The importance of Wierwille's plagarism is arguable, it's existance is not." I agree, somewhat. I've often said here before that Dr was NOT participating in the marketplace of bookselling, nor in the academic arena, where plagiarism and copyright infringement ARE important things to consider. Dr was engaging in the area of God's family, where we recognize that God is the owner and originator of all good and new ideas. In this family of God it's NOT important that credit and money receiving get top focus. In God's family it's GIVING that should be at the top priority slot. Kenyon GAVE. Bullinger GAVE. Styles GAVE. Leonard GAVE. They gave to God and His family. Dr merely rearranged where some think he stole. Dr GAVE too. He gave to us. He gave us LOTS of valuable things that he collected from the others. If Dr had been engaged in the competitive marketplace, then he might have had a little trouble with the charges. Actually, these charges still would be pretty minimized, seeing that his actions PROMOTED sales of the others' books, as Dr gave them lots free advertising by frequently mentioning them. If Dr had been engaged in the arena of academia, where students compete with other students for grades, where professors compete with other professors for jobs, and where universities compete with other universities for reputations, THEN what Dr did would have landed him in a LOT of trouble for cheating, and that's VERY important to those engaged in that particular arena. Dr did often give credit where credit is due, but most of his critics here forget that, or deliberately overlook it, or fly off in some anal retentive insistence that the credits were not in the proper format or location. *** Interestingly enough, Raf "somewhat" agreed with part of my analysis just yesterday on the "grifters" thread. There he wrote: "Oh, and I think he knew about the plagiarism but, except possibly for the Leonard material, didn't think it was a big deal: Bullinger was dead, after all. Plus, he probably was not thinking of his books as "scholarship" so much as tracts." Here he uses the word "tracts" to indicate what I would call family. I realize even my use of scare quotes still stretches my reference to Raf agreeing with me, but at least he does indicate the separation of the academic arena from where Dr was operating. *** Last October 14th Biblefan Dave posted in the "Pearly Gates" thread in the Doctrinal forum a piece much more in sync with my position with this: "Maybe we should clarify things somewhat. If I were to used material that our authors had written for my own personal use, I never had to credit the source. If I were to compile some information and share it with family and friends, I would not have to cite sources. "As soon as I attempt to make to market or to a profit from my compilations of material, then my must have cited my sources. Then, that is plagiarism. Simply using someone else's material is not wrong, selling it without citing sources is not wrong. "As long as a book is in the public domain, it is never wrong to use material written in that book. I am free to use a sentence from one book or a phrase from another book, if I don't try to sell the material. "Also, there is such a thing as common knowledge. A book mentions that hydrogen plus oxygen produces water. That is common knowledge, thus there is no reason to cite the source. If a person reads that Lincoln was the President during the time of the Civil War, that is common knowledge and need not be cited. If there is some uniqueness and/or originality to the writings, the sources must always be cited. "That is legal plagiarism. In academic standards, using someone else's term paper which with a few rephrasing of words and claiming it to be one's own would be considered cheating, academically. Even if the person never profited from their paper, copying it and making small revisions would be academic plagiarism and could result in academic penalties." *** Thanks Biblefan Dave! :)--> In areas where receiving credit and money is the MOST important thing, like in academia and in the open marketplace, then the procedures that Dr used would be labeled plagiarism and copyright infringement. In the MUCH more important area of God's family where GIVING is paramount then he gave well. God is the owner and He gives out the rewards with perfect precision. Which area are we going to station ourselves? I choose God's family.

I wish I had the time I needed to respond to all right now. :(--> . . . I'm sooooo tired. . . . Just paid my self-unemployment taxes yesterday... --> . . . Need to do some overtime to make ends meet in this extra rainy year. . . . :(--> . . . Ahh! My Irish roots beckon me! . . . TOMORROW IS ANOTHER DAY! . . . (cue the orchestra) . . . (zoom out) . . . . . . . ................................maybe I could sell tickets! :D-->

Galen, Don't worry. I'm unscathed. I used to be scathed, but I finally got rid of that old scathe stuff. I re-labeled it and sold it to some guy on e-bay. :D-->

Where am I? --> . . My head is spinning! :(--> Is that against the rules? . . Hey! What are you guys doing on MY thread? . . . . . --> :(--> . . . Oops! . . . . I must have made a wrong turn somewhere back there. --> . . . Sorry! . . .:D--> . . Actually... I meant to do that!.. . . . Yeah! That's the ticket! . . . Now where did I put that thread?????? --> . . .

God's written Word is what He gave to men whom He selected, spiritual revelation, and then guided them in putting it into written form that anyone can read. This written Word has been given often in the past, and then it's quickly or eventually covered up, camouflaged, and/or destroyed. God just gives it again, though, as is illustrated in Jer.36. God's incarnate Word is the man, Jesus Christ. The Word of God in it's spiritual form is the messages given in the cluster of the three revelation manifestations. There are also counterfeits of God's Word, which makes it difficult to find, but those who seek it first in their life are drawn and guided by God to find it. If I were to give you a 5-senses definition of spirit, His Spirit, then it would be "de-finite," or made finite, and thus no longer infinite Spirit. Thus all written definitions of spirit are merely crude approximations. If you want to know spiritually what spirit is you must first find out from His written word all that you can by your 5-senses, and then when you are able to hear God's voice directly and He sees that you need to know more about that word, then HE will tell you more. You can't bring God down to earth/flesh level, only ascend to His level for some things. These things require meekness and great desire, and will never be made available for those with mere idle curiosity. You must have a plan of action lined up with God's plans to get deep answers from Him. This is not simple and flesh-level Geometry where we start out with precise definitions. We work with what He has given us first, and then He gives us more as we need it. You're not going to get theological proofs from me or PFAL, just the next steps you need in your walk with God.