Mike

Oakspear, You wrote: ?Basing one's belief that Wierwille's writings are "God's Word" simply because Wierwille said so is circular reasoning.? I agree. But that?s not what I?ve done. There are different reasons for my belief, reasons other than Dr?s claims. They are complex and personal. Too much to type and for no benefit to others. Dr?s quotes to that effect ARE brought up here by me because many here say he did NOT say that he was writing by revelation. For Dr to have said ?Thus Saith? so many times means, to me, that he did not want to allow us to think of him in any shades of gray. Either he DID get these many claimed revelations or he did not. This forces us to decide one way or the other. I imagine my bringing up Dr?s ?Thus Saith? statements make it difficult for lukewarm ?Wierwille apologists" who want to ride the fence and pick and choose what they think was good. ******************** Here?s how I put this a few months ago on another thread: Let me say first, though, that I REALIZE that Dr's claims to having received and abundance of revelation do NOT prove that his claims are true. I don't know why so many think I don't see that. What Dr's claims do prove or demand is something different. His many, many claims like this do effectively eliminate all gray areas in how we should regard him. Moderates and middle-of-the-roaders, people who think Dr's material was in the gray area between good and evil, should be challenged by Dr's extreme assertions. They need to get off the fence and decide which extreme he is in. His claims prove that he was either extremely right or extremely wrong. His claims force us to either totally reject his writings or totally accept them (in quality not quantity). His claims make dwelling in the gray area illogical. If Dr's writings fall into the totally evil category (with just enough good to hook people but not really bless them) then the ONLY proper response for one of his former disciples would be a TOTAL purge himself of everything Dr taught and then totally start over in some other camp. This would not only be a monumental task for some of the more entrenched grads, but WHERE to go to get their total re-education in Christianity (notice I didn't say churchianity here) is even more arduous. This second task, in addition to purging, should severely challenge the wise seeker, because who's to say he wouldn't suffer from the "out of the frying pan and into the fire" syndrome. If this possibility is true, that Dr's claims were false, then the best response is to throw away BOTH the bathwater AND the baby, and start all over. This logical consequence of Dr's claims being false, the need of totally purging is something that I see ALL non-mastering admirer's of Dr avoiding. These are the gray area people. I see all of CFF, CES, GRR, and other major splinter group leaders totally oblivious to this logical requirement, if it's the case that Dr's extreme claims are not true. I was coming to see this logical requirement in the Nineties, and was moving more and more into fully investigating a total purge for myself. My respect for Dr was steadily declining from a moderate gray view to a more and more evil view. I was aware of the alternative (Dr's claims being right) but I felt I had already looked deep enough into that possibility during the Seventies and Eighties. My mental model of how I knew I needed to view Dr, good or evil, was probably only months away from being decided upon when a large body of new data found its way to me, including Dr's last teaching, including its status of being rather totally lost, and including many more yet undescribed data points. As I again, more rigorously this time, explored THIS possibility of Dr being totally correct (yet still remembering the limitation of PFALp.83) many of my reasons for accepting the totally evil possibility started evaporating one by one, some immediately, some after a few years. After pondering both possibilities the best I could, I decided to place my bet, stake my whole life of the God-breathed status of his PFAL books addressed to us, his class. All of life is risk. There's just as much risk in betting on the other horse. *************** Oakspear, I?m back to your post where you wrote: ?Basing that belief on so-called hidden meanings in passages where Wierwille clearly says that his writings are not equivalent to God's Word is fanatasy.? Again, it?s not the hidden things that formed my belief. AFTER believing that God is behind PFAL, then the hidden things can come out at God?s discretion.

Oakspear, You wrote: ?IF Wierwille was given PFAL by revelation, then it is not idolatry to follow everything that was in PFAL. IF Wierwille was speaking by revelation when he told us to "master PFAL" then it would behoove us to master it.? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh! I just wanted to savor that a little. Thanks. BUT... ?The evidence that Wierwille was doing God's will, and that PFAL is the "Word of God" for our times is slim at best...? on this website, because the stock of available evidence has not been fully tapped for examination. Hence my mission is to post some of that lost data for consideration. Consideration takes time, so I don?t want to rush anyone in this. Plus I?m not done posting data, so I won?t to rush anyone for this additional reason as well. The evidence you cited is admittedly discouraging. I thoroughly admit that and to having considered it myself for a number of years, and a number of times in different decades. If it weren?t for the GREAT amount of data the SUDDENLY found me in 1998, I?d have been SQUARELY in your camp. I did reach a point of discouragement from your stated data where I wrote two e-mails in early 1998, that if I posted them now, you?d think I was schizophrenic. ..... No... wait a minute... you think that now... If I posted them now you?d think it was someone else?s writing. If the evidence you cite is all that is considered, then there is no reason for any OLG to come back to PFAL, except one still small voice.

alfakat, Repetition of good things cam be nice. Interest can be built. We love him because He first loved us. It's the gentleness of God that leads a man to change his mind. (Romans paraphrase) I think including a paste of the verses from a simple KJV file would bless all readers. *************** I thank God for the richness of your first round in PFAL. I?m not being facetious. If it weren't for the partial (or full) mastery that you and others GSers here did back then, this wouldn't be nearly as stimulating for me. I applaud your efforts and successes in study. Same goes for many here who've displayed a retention of a quite rigorous first time through. It's the Return to PFAL that makes a difference, the Return to PFAL for our SPIRITUAL understanding, after having gotten a good (to full) 5-senses understanding in the first go around. Like I said to WordWolf above, you were a different man then with different needs and different abilities to absorb when you first came to PFAL on the 5-senses level. The Second Coming to PFAL is where the spiritual action is at. With a spiritual understanding of God?s revealed Word, the adversary?s 5-senses reign is superceded. The adversary is earth bound, 5-senses bound in his abilities. (Steve Lortz -attention: hierarchical levels in Realms mentioned) In the first century the church did well for a while, because their 5-senses understanding was pretty good, to the point of doing miracles, just like the early 70?s for us. But as time went by in the first century, the adversary mounted his campaign in the 5-senses realm to slowly surround the church. Slowly doing the same thing with them as he did with Eve: adding subtracting changing. Their verbal tradition corrupted (just like our TVT) and when the apostles died the adversary outsmarted their approximate (and getting worse) 5-senses understandings. He could run rings around them because they stayed in the Natural/Factual realm, HIS realm, delivered to him by Adam. He could corrupt their understanding, given time, if it remained only 5-senses. Paul?s great struggle with the Galatians was to get Christ FORMED (4:19) within their minds, and he was losing this struggle. Forming Christ in their minds was one way of saying giving them a spiritual understanding so that they wouldn?t get bewitched so easily. The same exact things happened to us. We?ve witnessed (if we were observing) 1500 years of churchianity repeat itself in our grad universe in the past 15 or so years. This is one major reason for this thread, to get to this point of explanation.

alfakat and vickles, I did get it and agree that that you pointed out a VERY important set of scriptures. Why not post them in full, instead of the reference numbers? I think that would bless some GS readers who didn't look them up. Actually it's pressing toward the mark that I'm doing in my life too. I see the next administration well enough to taste it! Once this thread is over, I'd like to get deeply into the Return, Appearing, Second Coming, and all the other names and ideas we have about that scene.

WordWolf, You wrote: ?For some reason, it surprises you that the more literate GS'ers and people who memorized the collaterals aren't buying what you're selling.? Dr used the word ?almost memorized? in the AC. Walter mentioned in a class that Nakita Kruschev (sp?) had memorized either a gospel or all four. Memorization is useful, but is not the same thing as learning. I?ve seen lots of bad leaders in the Corps who memorized lots of nice lines, yet their hearts were stone. **************** You also wrote: E) I HAVE learned that trying to illustrate using analogies doesn't connect with you. So, I will try to remember not to use them. I saw the illustration and connected with it?s meaning. It would have been a good analogy had it fit the circumstances. It did not. That?s why I offered my analogy. Did it connect with you?

WordWolf, You wrote: D) You said "Recognizing that God appointed Dr as His spokesman is no more idolatrous than recognizing that God also appointed Paul 2000 years ago to a similar status? Why is this hard for you to see?" Mike...... IF such a thing were true, and IF evidence could be brought to support such a claim, and IF the logical conclusion, based on the evidence, was that it was true that God appointed vpw as His spokesman in 1942 or at any other time, THEN you would be facing a LOT less opposition to your idolatrous comments, and would find people who would agree with you who actually KNOW something about PFAL and/or the Bible. WordWolf, you described above a 5-senses approach to surety. That method of works well for the relatively trivial items of science and math, but not for deciding a life?s course. I?m not saying throw out 5-senses integrity and logic, but where in your paragraphs above do you include the REAL surety we need? Where we get our SPIRITUAL confirmation, as opposed to a 5-senses one that must ALWAYS be reexamined for errors and tuned up as more data comes in. Sooner or later spiritual confirmation must come into play. I think we already HAD our 5-senses confirmation in the learning, application, and leading of others into PFAL years ago. If an OLG can?t remember the good part, I will not be able to reach them. God may have some other plan for them, but my typing here is mostly to OLGs who know SOMETHING went very right in amongst all the crap, and THIS is IT: the PFAL writings that we absorbed the first time pretty well in the Natural/Factual mode, and now IT?S TIME to get into the spiritual understanding. OLGs who have talked themselves out of the idea that there was something VERY PURE there in PFAL worth devoting our lives to are beyond my reach at the present time. [This message was edited by Mike on June 20, 2003 at 13:03.]

Goey, Come ON! This isn't hard. A command from Jesus Christ is as good as a command from God, right? Jesus got his words by revelation form God, so he doesn't have to BE God to have his words worthy of obedience. Right? When Peter spoke before Cornielius' household he spoke with all the authority of God Almighty. If and when Dr spoke by revelation, then obeying Dr is obeying God. Disobeying Dr on one of these points is disobeying God. It all hinges on whether God got His revelation through and THAT is what was spoken. Can you see that your found "idolizations" of mine melt away IF Dr spoke by revelation? [This message was edited by Mike on June 20, 2003 at 13:08.]

WordWolf, You wrote: ?C) You claimed VPW was an intellectual genius, and at the level of a professional athlete.? Let?s take care of this fast. I stated my opinions on this subject. I may be have been wrong about that, but it is my opinion still. You wrote: ?You claimed his was exceptional both physically, and mentally, with little more than a handful of overheard statements here and there. You DON'T think of that as idolatry.? No. My God is much more gracious that that. I don?t idolize Mickey Mantle either.

WordWolf, You wrote: B) I think you glossed over my comments about the studies involving the collateral readings, the Advanced Class exam, and-oh! I didn't even mention the Home Studies! I finished those in record time, as well. THOSE were all based on the written material, and in each of those I rated notably high. I read them more than my comments may have reflected. One impression I have is that this was early in your PFAL life that you did ALL this study or most of it. You were younger then, had a different background ?take? on life then, and your needs were different. As a result, what CONTENT you absorbed and put together (opposed to rote memorization) was according to who you were THEN. We all different people now, with different perspectives and needs. I think that, because PFAL is spiritually enriched by God, if you came back to PFAL you?d see MANY things in there you missed the first time around. What you?re able to see now is different than back then. If PFAL was the word of man I wouldn?t be able to say this, but it?s much richer than your first exposure retained. I don?t discredit your first time through at all. I am blessed so many of us did respond to God?s call then. I did mention one possible handicap in your first learning, but I see that as minor and overcomable. I am convinced that coming back to PFAL will be a challenging and refreshing adventure for you, and that it would greatly help you see plainly the difference between Dr?s flesh and the revelations GOD put into PFAL.

WordWolf, You wrote: ?Based on that post and previous posts, you were saying that, as of 1982, the key revelation, our True Bible, the Written Word of God, was now VPW's PFAL class collaterals. This was not an official position of TWI, but it WAS the position of God Almighty.? Ok, would you say THAT'S exactly what you meant?? Looks pretty close. But let me ask you this: do you really NEED to have a tight exact understanding of MY position to come back to PFAL and meekly learn more? Is your question designed to help you better follow my advice or to better counter my words and discourage others from enjoying PFAL? The answer is obvious, you need not type it out any more than you already have.

WordWolf, You wrote: ?G) By the way, Mike, don't think your claims that there are no authoritative rules for the English language was missed. I just see no point in trying to educate you on proper English form and grammar, since attempts to do so by people FAR more knowledgeable on the subject than either of us were unable to show you the truth of the matter. No, I didn?t think that would slip by you. I do see some of the details of my position slipped by you from your summary paragraph. Anyone who says ?there are no authoritative rules for the English language? has GOT to be crazy. You forgot one idea in there that, without going back and finding my post, I am sure I included the word ?fine.? It?s the fine rules, the tiny nitty gritty rules, that are in dispute between the various ?Manuals of Style? that are out there. The French may have an authoritative language police, but we don?t. You exaggerated my position to the extreme. I do maintain that there are gross rules that are not in dispute among the academics, AND that enjoy common obedience. I recognize the common useage rules that prevail among us all, but whether to put a final comma with the final ?and? in a short list itemization is a decision I FULLY reserve to my own discretion, and I don?t even see a need to be consistent. Sometimes I use the final comma, sometimes I don?t, depending on how it looks. If I were writing for a grade in an academic institution, I?d have to conform to their rules, or if I was a mild mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, I?d have to place my commas where the very authoritarian Perry White said so. Pawtucket has chosen to overlook misplaced comas here, so grammatical anarchy reigns here! I think Dr allowed his editors to clean up his grammar some, to conform to some school of style, but I don?t look to that school as having the last word of the revelations Dr put into written form. Just like with his own vocabulary, those of us who are past the need for any more proof of the inspiration of PFAL, need to be aware of Dr?s own use of these FINER points of grammar. Those of us who are not spinning our wheels talking AROUND this Word, but who are attempting to rightly divide it and apply it, we see no great difficulties in understanding Dr?s vocabulary or grammar. If a Manual of Style says Dr means ?such and such? in a difficult passage according to their strict rules of fine grammar, and this ?such and such? contradicts many clear passages on the same subject, then rightly dividing means throwing out that manual?s spurious interpretation. If you want to hold onto the manual and throw out PFAL, that?s your decision. I?m going with the only True source of light I?ve ever seen and that?s the revelation God gave to us in PFAL.

Goey, I'm talking about obedience to GOD and His SON by obeying His Word, this Word He gave to Dr by revelation.

Ohhhhh, you RASCAL!

Goey, Several times, and some very recently, I?ve posted that I am NOT trying to make a formal logical argument to prove my position that PFAL is worth mastering. For ME it?s proved. Several times I?ve posted on the limitations of formal logic. It?s usually at it?s best in trivial applications like math or physics. It?s application to vastly complex systems such as human beings and spiritual searching and confirmation is useful in segmented ways only. In no way can anyone maintain a purely formal lifestyle or belief system. Many times breaks or jumps are called for and executed. Hunches, guesses, experimentation, revelation and many more things in the real word call for the segmented application of formal logic, when things can be reduced to its parameters. Often times they can?t be. Have you seen the other comments on logic I did these past two days? It seemed your questions about three posts ago reflected an unawareness that I?m purposely not trying to always prove things in formal logic. I like logic and reason, but I recognize their human limitations. Whenever we reason outside the Word we?re on shaky ground. I?m NOT saying leave your brains at the door when you want to come in and talk to me, but I AM SAYING don?t be surprised if I refuse to comply with all the logic and proof demands placed on me. I?m not trying to prove what can only be proved by obedience and mastering PFAL.

Goey, Have you heard what Dr said on the Thessalonians tapes about the NON-dictation model?

Goey, Ok I figured out what you agreed with me on. I guess I should put away this old blank green card then? Did you add the quote a little after first posting? I seem to have not seen it on first flash

Goey, I think we're posting at the same time and post references are getting skewed.

Goey, Just to fluff things up a bit: it appears like you hold to the ?divine dictation? model of Scriptural revelation and inspiration. Written revelation doesn't HAVE to be all divine dictation. In fact, in the Thessalonians University of Life, Dr TWICE mentions in covering verse 1:1 for both of these epistles, that there is a reason why there are three names mentioned as authors: Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. At these two points Dr teaches that written revelation is usually NOT divine dictation, but first the revelation to Paul was discussed between the three, and then later put into written form. In I Peter 1:20-21 we see the WRITTEN scripture mentioned in verse 20 as coming from a process where (next verse) holy men of God SPAKE. I now shy away from the ?divine dictation? model because it seems to leave room for the possibility that the receiver doesn?t completely understand the string of words. If a revelation is ?hashed? out in conversation then it has a chance of coming out into manifestation in a fuller way or an a way more fully understood by that man of God who can then also teach on the words better. The idea of editing or discussing or hashing out a revelation to get it into written form comes up in a Psalm. (forget number) Bulinger and others have noted that the KJV rendering isn?t correct, and that it SHOULD say something like (I?m in a rush) ?Every word of God is pure, words of earth, tried in an oven seven times.? Starts out with ?words of earth? or 5-senses words and it ends up with pure or spiritual words. Hey! We?re back on topic.

rascal, I think we?re quibbling over nomenclature. I?m not saying Craig was right in any way on the demands or the firings. I found the tape from 1972 where Dr talks about ministry employment and Craig seems to have applied. However, when Dr said that in ?72 it was in a context where he well defined the difference between the 5-senses corporation and the Body. It?s that difference that got blurred LONG before the firings, and in EVERYONE?S head, not just Craig?s. Dr took pains to document the difference in the record BECAUSE he saw it being blurred. By the time of the firings Craig was in some many strange heads, just about all bad. He thought he was God?s man for the Body of Christ and he wasn?t that at all, hence the arrogance. He was ONLY the president of a 5-senses corporation with a payroll he had some legal control over. He could ONLY demand loyalty in the confines of that employment, but he thought it went further and acted thusly. Likewise those fired had long since forgotten the subtle difference between the corporation and the Body, having disobeyed Dr?s oft issued ?master PFAL? instructions to them, especially his final, crystal clear instructions. They were just as confused as Craig and could not explain themselves well to him. They weren?t able to assure him that his 5-senses presidency was not in jeopardy, and at the same time, let him know they were disappointed with the spiritual leadership they had ?sort of? granted him in their lives. This was too complicated a message to compose or receive, and by 1989 all was lost anyway. All was lost in 1985 when Dr?s final instructions were universally ignored.

Goey, Compared to PFAL, my words ARE like fluff and filler.

Steve, As far as your second post, another degeneration to the depths of the generically named ?You?re possessed!? tactic. Pretty soon and people will start numbing out to the shock value of it. Sparing use of this tactic was one of the rules to maintain that edge of ?intimidating and sweeping.? The tactic is used to sweep information off the table and away from consideration; the exact thrust of your post. Now I will agree with you that you have identified a POSSIBLE problem with my invitation of ?Try it you?ll like it.? But that?s no great spiritual insight, because that?s a possibility with EVERYTHING that comes our way and looks good. Even your own well embraced paradigms SHOULD get the same possibility thought through as you have warned of mine. I warned myself of this in 1998 as I was deciding to accept this and try it. But I also was aware that to NOT come back to PFAL carried the same possibilities. In other words, we never know (on one level) if something is going to bite back unless we try it. We can never try something with wise confidence, though, until we?ve run it past God?s Word to the best we know it. So, how well do we KNOW God?s Word? Are there areas we are unfamiliar with? My message addresses the deep foundational beliefs we all carried as grads, but not an area we all got real familiar with. Several times I?ve thrown out the challenge here ?Why believe the Bible?? and got no takers. This question is deep at the beginning of the belief system, and for some, it hasn?t been even examined in years, let alone thought through well. People seem to be willing to talk about anything here BUT ?Why believe the Bible?? and I think because they don?t really know. It?s a scary question to ask oneself. Some people NEVER think about it, and defer it to others to do that kind of thinking for them. Steve, I?m well aware of the adversary?s first tactic on Eve was to get her to question the integrity of God?s Word. It probably looks like I?m doing the same here. I?m not. One difference is that Eve had a perfectly renewed mind and we don?t. If Eve was to change her mind from what it was it would SURELY be bad. But for us to change our minds, sometimes it?s bad because we were right, and sometimes it?s good because we were wrong to begin with and now closer to or on the truth. Because we don?t start out perfect like Eve, we must experiment around and sometimes even take risks to get to the truth or to more of the truth. From what I?ve presented PFAL mastery should look like a reasonable risk. From what I?ve presented about KJV verses being on every page, encouragement of context reading in PFAL, and many other checks and balances like the exclusion of TWI and other ogre-nizations, this ?Try it, you?ll like it? invitation should look pretty safe. People satisfied with their level of ?NON-allnineallthetime? knowledge will not take any such risk, and I understand that. But for those who think that maybe something got missed in the dumping of PFAL, I?m presenting a viable option: come back to PFAL master it like we never did. Steve, with your knowledge of the Bible, why aren?t you more concerned with the multitudes of infectious experimentation with ideas presented here on GS all the time that are obviously contrary to God and love? Please don?t tell me that my message is OBVIOUSLY contrary. If it is contrary it?s subtle, otherwise you wouldn?t feel the need to warn others about it who are less academically nerdy than me, and likely to get tricked by my subtlety. No, there?s no OBVIOUS evil in what I propose, yet you look away from the obvious evil all around you and go after an "evil" that you must admit is in a very subtle and foundational area. ************* I thought all this through LONG before posting here. Many aspects of what I had to think through on this maybe being wrong go back 30 years. So I understand why you warn of devil spirits in my message. It is logical from your perspective outside of PFAL mastery, and outside of obedience to Dr?s final instructions. [This message was edited by Mike on June 19, 2003 at 22:28.]

You two must like slumming.

Steve, Here?s a short answer to your long post. I may have more time later too. Your conclusion (with my ALL-CAPS) was: ?In the whole paragraph, Wierwille places HIS OWN writings squarely in among the writings of the other men.? I agree. For HIS OWN writings, they were squarely in among the writings of the other men and NOT God-breathed. But for writings that technically bear his name, but were NOT really HIS OWN but God?s revelation (sometimes via other men like Kenyon), THEN we have some exceptional writings indeed in PFAL. If ALL of what Wierwille wrote was not God-breathed, then the phrase ?not all? could not be used. It was used. ************* BTW, when we get down to some of the finer points in grammar, we will find that there is no authoritative authority as to what they are. Like there are no authoritative definitions for English words, there is no authoritative ?last word? on the finer rules of grammar. For fine definitions we must look to DOCTOR?S vocabulary above the various competing ?official? dictionary publications. For finer grammar we must look to how DOCTOR?S use of certain finer rules plays out above the various competing ?Manuals of Style? a few big newspapers seem to have generated. I don?t see things being bent in any way out of shape with my handling of page 82. It fits seamlessly with all the other things Dr said and wrote. Because I decided to run with PFAL unreservedly in 1998, it?s EASY for me to see no problem at all with this page. It even CONFIRMS things from my perspective. I count this page as one of the bigger, more overt, of the 90 ?Thus saith the Lord? statements I?ve found of Dr?s. When the divine inspiration is accepted in many clear statements of Dr?s, then page 82 is very easy to see as confirmatory, not contradictory. It?s slightly hidden in complex grammar, as I?ve stated before here, but it?s strong in that it apprears as a major exception to the context being cultivated. Surely you see that IF IF IF these PFAL writings are God-breathed, then they would HAVE to be an exception to all that?s said in the context of page 82? Surely IF IF IF God is allowed to inspire perfect writings still, even in these modern times, THEN these writings of His would be excepted from the majority context of page 82, even if His spokesman?s name is placed as the author on their covers. Surely you agree with this? Right? ************** I remember the folly of English teachers thinking that they could have an ultimate authority on the finer rules of grammar back in the 1950's. There was a large effort to strike the word ?aint? from useage, maybe as an anti beatnik measure. A lot of the literary establishment didn?t like the beats in the 50?s. As a ?grammar? school child I remember us kids making fun of this effort with a sentence we?d try to utter just barely within earshot of our beloved English teacher, Mrs. Crabbtree. ............... ?Ain?t? ain?t a word because it ain?t in the dictionary............... Obvious to even us little kids, it WAS a word because WE just had used it as a word. We were a big enough authority to make it an ?official? word and use it as a word so that it was understandable to others. It?s just an trivial accident of history, we defiantly thought, that Mrs. Crabbtree?s ?office? was a little bigger and fancier than ours. It?s for reasons like this that we were taught that God gave the revelation in the vocabulary of the man of God, and not Webster?s. Besides, where did Webster look up HIS words? Which authority did HE get them from? The ?how? of dictionary making is worth looking into. It?s interesting. [This message was edited by Mike on June 19, 2003 at 21:45.]

rascal, It was my impression that the line had been blurred for so many years that by the time Craig issued that letter it was gone. I could be wrong about this, but it's the best guess I have and not thinking evil. I think Craig was very confused on this by then (1999), as opposed to delibverately eliminating the line. I KNOW that many other clergy were confused about this line because I asked them.

Goey, Yes, they CAN be used as synonyms, and they CAN be used to slightly distinguish one similar-but-not-identical object from another, as I would if I were trying to say what I demonstrated above that you object to. I see Dr saying his situation (1942 promise) is a little different from the others on THAT page, and then I see him elaborating in OTHER pages (Green 34, 116) on that ?little? difference being not so little, depending on the context it?s viewed. If it weren?t for the slight differences of punctuation, slightly different synonym useage, inclusion of ?necessary? and ?not all,? then this page 82 would definitely contradict the others. But the differences are there, and they all add up to it agreeing with the other pages if you remember the 1942 promise and what it necessitates. People are not beings of formal logic, and when they pretend to be, they may fooling themselves but not me. I just mentioned to EWBulinger how we all jump out of formal logical systems to embrace guts feels. Godel did this and is celebrated for it in the field of formal logic for his genius. We were taught in Witnessing and Undershepherding that people are not always logical. We?re not. Formal logic is useful in many endeavors, but if it?s thought of as the only way to introduce light, then it?s resting on the arm of flesh. Proverbs 3: 5.6 warns us not LEAN on our understanding. None of the prophets came forth with God?s formal proof of their credentials. Sometimes there was miraculous proof afterwards, sometimes not. But even miracles aren?t formal proof, because of the possibility of counterfeit powers. I?m not trying to prove it to you that you should come back and master PFAL. I?m simply telling you, or presenting it to you. If I had been trying to formally prove it, and thus force you to accept it, I?d have failed at both. Now you are correct that I assume Dr handled the words carefully there on page 82 of PFAL. Handling words accurately and precisely is possible for humans at times, especially in their fields of expertise and practice. I talked to one of Dr?s editors of the PFAL about this very same sentence. When I first quoted it to him on the phone a few years ago he IMMEDIATELY said ?Oh yeah! I remember THAT sentence.? Dr worked that sentence well before filming the class because it slides out so smoothly when he says it on the tape, and he then worked it with his editors. Those words were carefully chosen on the tape, and hardly changed at all in the book after much thought. **************************************************** Here?s what Dr says in OMSW page 7: Often I pray, ?Almighty God, unto whom every heart is opened....? I do not use these words haphazardly. Why should I? I study God?s Word so that I know what the words ?Almighty God? stand for. I want to know what they mean Biblically, and then I endeavor to use them accurately. ?. . . I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.? The text literally says ?walk before me and you are complete.? ?Walk and be complete.? Walk upon what? ?The revelation I have given you. Don?t walk by your reasoning or your opinions, but by the revelation that I have given you.? *************************************************** Don?t walk by your reasoning or your opinions, but by the revelation, PFAL, that I have presented to you.