Mike

I know. Plus, I might not even be right about that quote. But I like the idea. IF God taught Dr, and Dr taught us, then that explains how extremely blessed I was when first learning PFAL, and it continues to this day. I love the Epistles of Paul, and seen them as Jesus Christ's ministry to us in THIS administration. I'd NEVER be able to do that had the class not been there consistently.

Babe Ruth said that "if a man says he can jump over a barn, and he can do it, then it ain't bragging."

For years most posters here have insisted that PFAL page 83 says something like this: "What Wierwille writes will necessarily not be God-breathed." If they were right, then you'd lose the hubris you detected. I don't count it hubris, IF it is true. If it is not true, then it is hubris maximus.

So you AGREE with me on the grammar, but reject the assertion. I can accept that. By any chance, are you a grammar expert?

Wow! A WW blast from the past! Turn back the clock. WordWolf you are true to form; as usual you left out some pretty damning testimony. Finding this was fun, on an old "Snow Job" thread. I edited for easy reading, but the links still work to the original thread. Another Blast from the Past is this “Lifted Up” post that WW, true to his form, ALWAYS leaves out of his Snow Job summaries. And guess what? This clip of a thread has a lot of us same folks discussing it. ******************************************** Mike Posted January 27, 2009 Bolshevik said: even if we had source 19 it would be of eight miles northwest from said location, I believe weather in ohio moves from the southwest to the northeast. It probably doesn't prove much. … Dream away wayfers!!! I think you’re the one dreaming, or daydreaming. It looks to me that you are trying to re-invent a wheel that went flat several times here. I suggest you look at the earlier portions of this thread for a quote I posted by Lifted Up on his witnessing two rogue, small, isolated, short-lived, yet massively thick snow storms (or squalls), one in Ohio near HQ and one in Pennsylvania. If you can't find it, I'll re-paste it here. ******************************************** Mike Posted January 27, 2009 The post I referred to may not be on this thread, but on the one that spawned this thread. That earlier thread is titled “Was VPW an Advanced Class Grad” and can be found here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...t=0&start=0 In Post #12 of that thread I reminded readers that weather reports would not very well catch a small rogue snow storm, especially in days of scant communication technology compared to today's. Such storms can be only a few blocks in size, and last only a few minutes, and then melt in a few minutes and never be reported. On that spawning thread I posted a copy of a very old post that Lifted Up placed here. Here it is again, since it fits so much into this thread’s topic. posted Jan 1 2003 Post #159 Lifted Up Rafael wrote... "It didn't snow. The weather reports from that day in that region prove it did not snow that day." What weather reports? I have been staying out of this for some reasons, but I can't help being curious about that statement. Just from a weather reporting point of view, a snow shower such as that in question would be unlikely to show up (or proof that it didn't happen) in any old weather reports, unless the point in question is precisely at an observing and reporting point for weather data. General conditions...the high and low temperature for that given day and whether or not there was precipitation...at even a very a nearby point...just will not tell you either way. I experienced a very brief and local but intense snow shower one day back in 1979 when I was running near HQ. One minute it was not snowing, the next minute the snow was almost blinding, and fell hard enough to whiten the ground; five minutes later it was gone. Just a couple miles away, it evidently did not snow at all. I have actually seen that kind of thing a number of times; most noteably in the mountains of central PA, but here it was happening in fairly flat country. The same idea of extreme local weather variations happens in warm weather. I sometimes have a fun time explaining to insurance people, or their clients, that I cannot tell them for sure that there was or was not a storm causing damaging winds at their precise location, because we had no reports either way at the particular time and date they are interested in. (It is easy to be out in the boonies around where I live and work). Sometimes of course I can tell them for sure there was nothing around...of course these calls are not for weather from sixty years ago, either. Of course, if there were evidence that the temperature was close to, say eighty degrees at the time in question, then the occurrence of a snow shower at that time might be deemed implausible...just like the creation of a dry area across the red Sea by a strong east wind. ******************************************** Mike Posted January 27, 2009 waysider said: I guess I don't get it. If it was just a rogue snow squall that nobody else happened to see, what makes it so phenomenal? The timing was significant to VPW. It's short duration was also attention getting to him. I never said nobody else saw it, only that it didn't get reported by the Weather Service. ******************************************** Ok, OldSkool. Strike Up the Crickets!

As I explained to T-Bone a few days ago, HOW words are held to a standard and by which research rules, makes a huge difference. We were taught a method that works well, and that is the method I select for my work.

I know you mean Godel there. The proofs for Godel's Theorems ONLY work for technical "Formal Systems" which I explained were 19th century theoretical "proving machines." To say that Godel's Theorems apply to anything outside of Formal Systems is not accurate. What we learn from Godel can apply, but sans the water tight proofs that Godel came up with.

No. It's not the application of the MATH that I was talking about. It's the idea of the PROOFS in math that I was referring to. It's the proofs that make the math available for applications elsewhere. But people often get the impression (maybe you too) from this that these types of water-tight proofs that happen in math, can happen in areas like psychology or political science or philosophy. In those fields human life and culture are the interest. Saying logical things and proving one's ideas is highly desired because it all can have PROFOUND effects on people's lives. Math proofs only happen in the realm of RELATIVELY trivial elements of sets, sets of sets, and numbers. Math proofs are trivial compared to courtroom proofs in this way. Similarly for science. The surest of sciences (Quantum ElectroDynamics or QED) only can address trivial tiny matters smaller than atoms. Going up the chain to chemistry to biology the profundity increases of the subject matters, BUT the surety decreases.

Yes. You are right. It is true of ALL of us that we will have to give account of our every word. I remind myself of that. Thanks for the extra reminder. I admit I did a poor piece of writing, where you suggested I expand the paragraph. If I ever use that text as boilerplate somewhere else, I'll have to re-write that section. */*/*/*/* With the rest of your post I respectfully disagree, except with the logic that IF i am wrong, then I am in deep doo doo. In application, when I work written PFAL, I am in a world of KJV verses and I know for MOST OF LIFE, just about any Bible version with our training will steer us pretty right. It is really the case that when you narrow it all down to just work with a small set of easy to read books, all of the crazy evils we all back then have been burned out of the pages. The Corps was a whole other matter. It is easy to delete it from my perspective. I resisted enough of them to their face that it is just those books that guide me, and they guide me into the KJV thousands of times. And trust me, I think of how everyone else missed the boat SO OFTEN, that it's inevitable that the possibility I have missed the boat comes up, not often, but regularly. Since 1998 my understanding of this has hit a glitch at times, and I modify accordingly best I can. I don't have all the answers to some of the logical questions. In APPLICATION of all this, I made more frequent mistakes. In the love department I'm still learning. It's what we DO with what we got that matters most in the end.

I can agree, and to be more specific: I see the writers as widely separated by their locations on the time line. Other separations were culture, geography, education. Over these spans I see religions of men as tending to divisiveness and chaotic. But fortunately for us that religion DID have an "only rule" which we inherited, and their religious copying machines were reliable. I am thankful we can enjoy a perspective where

In a strict sense, I have to agree with you. There are no rigorous proofs outside mathematics. But though they are the only water tight proofs in the known world, they only apply to trivial elements. So we use different kinds of proofs and logic for things that matter in life. In most formal settings, such as courtrooms, testimonial proof is the name of the game. I agree GSC is not in any way a courtroom or a place where logical discussions are the unbreakable rule. But many times many of us hew out little courtrooms where we try to prove things, and conduct logical discussions. Anyone for a little chit-chat on the mirror reversal riddle? But, Rocky here's my protest to your question to me above. I am OFTEN pressed for logical discussion, often even designed to derail my already known (albeit poorly) message. This is so often, that my reflex reaction is to say TO MYSELF, "What is this logical discussion they are demanding of me now?" Q: Where does it say GSC threads are logical discussions? A: In the threads of most challengers who very forcefully demand logical discussions from me all the time. Anyway, I am thankful to you folks who allow me to get my message expressed here.

Gee wiz, did I make a mistake? How do you want to handle that?

I think most well written articles, text books, and novels will interpret themselves at times to make things clear. In a novel, especially a mystery novel, the clues may be well hidden or may come in late in the story. For some books there is less need for this. But if the reader is constantly confused, and gets no clarification that book might be considered poor quality. The reason it was useful to us to hear that the Bible interprets itself, is because we live in a culture where there is so much chaos in Bible doctrines that many people figure the multi author, multi century production of the Bible would NOT be so well coordinated between such widely separated contributors. But we were taught that the Bible really has only one Author and He wants us to know, where it is appropriate. Not everywhere does the Bible interpret itself, though. Those who mistakenly think VPW was teaching all the Bible interprets itself really missed the boat. Even smart grad writers have made this silly mistake. God arraigned that some portions of the Bible would interpret itself where we need it. He had us taught other tools when this tool is not the best one to use. That the Bible does sometimes interpret itself is a Godsend that assures us that there is only one Author.

You misread. If you read it again you see I did NOT apply those numbers. They are radio/TV station numbers. Mike's word interprets itself OFTEN right where it's written. That is a good tool you can apply to lots of texts.

Sorry, I forgot to whisper when I posted that. Sorry also about your need there.

No, I am real. I shook Pawtucket's hand in San Diego at pamsandiego's house 15 years ago, and got a nice GSC T-shirt from him. And no, Rocky, that "IF" paragraph was not an admission on my part that I "come here for the primary purpose of beating dead horses." Sometimes it feels that I am tilting at windmills, but then I get encouragement that some lurkers or rare posters are in the wings hearing my material for the first time. From 2002-2008 there were a sizeable handful of semi-friendly posters who were also pro-PFAL, and occasionally posting on my side. Most of them seem gone, some died, but still a few happy handles show up on my screen. Oldiesman was on my side on the plagiarism issue. Johniam seemed pretty proPFAL at times. Gosh, I forgot some handles, because I got to know their real names and we became Facebook friends. There are about 5 of them. Then, there is a tiny but steady trickle of members here that contact me privately and various connections are made out in the "real" world. Newspapers and radio/TV stations all know that for every ONE letter sent to them, there are between 100 and 1000 people who felt the same way, but were dis-inclined to write because it is difficult in some way. I'm not saying the same numbers would apply here, but I feel there are a few who come here and learn from my posts. It is my GREAT suspicion that most of you are aware of these kinds of hidden stats, and many hate it. I see posts that are written with this in mind, like while you are hotly discussing things to me, the surreptitious addressee of the posts are the undecided lurkers. So, no I am not beating dead horses, and not trying to disrupt, but determined to get out a very unpopular message because I believe it is of God and it will help people. Helping people is my duty. Had there been someone else doing this job, I'd had not sensed a need, and never stuck my neck out. I don't like the negativity directed at me. Trolls like the negativity they stir up. E-Gads! How many times did I get accused of being a troll many years ago? I lost count. It seemed weekly when there were hundreds posting here daily.

I would say that it was very ASSUMPTUOUS of me to say what I posted. Now I know that I can't get Scrabble points with that word, but I do get explanatory power out of it. It explains with similar spelling why it is not presumptuous. Presumptuous would be where I would make an arrogant , unwarranted move or proposition. But I avoided that by using the word "IF" in bold and all-caps. I also deliberately squashed all the sentences that follow from each "IF" into ONE paragraph under it's umbrella. It would be presumptuous if I simply assumed the paragraph were always true and marched on. But I didn't and my proposition ended with the paragraph. I even said this explicitly, just so you would not think it presumptuous. I tried to lead you by the hand into a simple logical statement that follows from EACH opening "IF." But it looks like you need more help avoiding the feeling of arrogance coming from me. I am willing to help more. I think the possible reason you missed all these anti-presumptious measures I took, is because you don't want to even CONSIDER the possibility that the big paragraph is true. But for logical discussions you have to be able TEMPORARILY face the music, even if it is uncomfortable. Ready to try again? Apply all these words to the following. Just like you I was a little uncomfortable facing the POSSIBILITY I was wrong. Now with all this encouragement, try giving that second "IF" a quick, temporary try. It wont hurt too much, I promise. IF I am wrong, it is not that big a deal to me, nor to God. I've been wrong before, and forgiven. It's easy for me to bounce back from my errors. Besides, my PFAL stand means I absorb LOTS of KJV verses in my PFAL study, and what I am judged for is how I walk in love on that Word that I know. I would be guilty of overestimating God's love maybe? IF I am right about PFAL being directly from God via 1942 Promise, then you folks are found guilty of trashing God's biggest work in 2,000 years, the restoration of His Word in written PFAL, then you will soon be knowing how Judas felt at the day of Pentecost. What he felt was GREAT shame at getting it ALL wrong. Of course Jesus forgave him, and somehow Judas stumbled thru the 40 days with the apostles, so the apostles forgave him. They probably were too busy condemning their own unbelief at the crucifixion, especially Peter for 6 denials. Then on Pentecost Jesus ascends and disappears from sight, and two angels appear, promising more goodies not many days hence. And the poor natural man that he was, Judas could not take the self condemnation for missing it all so badly. His whole world was turned upside down. I lost his ALL. Now I trust none of you are natural men. Even Raf. Once with Romans 10:9 and the new car behind the curtain is yours. I imagine you all might be able to handle the shame eventually, but there will also be great frustration at what you missed. What did you miss? Look at the beginning of this paragraph and remember the "IF." If I am right, and you rejected it, then you missed YEARS where you could have been applying it to your lives and others and finally getting results. That will be a big deal to you. The Word talks of the possibility of us Christians being ashamed before him at his coming. Maybe Jesus or the Father will walk you thru your posts and show you where you were wrong. How did you do? Make it all the way to the end of the big paragraph? I noticed you didn't quote it all the way. Hey, if you only made it a little farther than the first time, let;s consider that progress, ok? Tomorrow is another day. If you want me to help you tomorrow with it, just give me a holler. I think you can make it all the way if you don't give up. I'm rooting for you getting it all by yourself.

No. Go back and read.

No mystery. You are merely pretending we haven't been over this dozens of times.

Oops! I just noticed I posted in the wrong thread. Sorry. I had promised not to allow my responding to derail this thread. If you want to respond to my ABSENT CHRIST post above, please do it in the PFAL-T thread, if possible.

Do you have a better word to describe our access to Christ AFTER the Ascension, than absent? Before the Ascension Jesus was personally present IN THE SENSES REALM to see, hear, and touch. THAT kind of personal presence ended with the Ascension. That means he was not personally present any more, but was personally absent. But look more at the Ascension. The two angels said he went into heaven. That means is is STILL PRESENT, not in the personal sense, but in spiritually. God wanted his personal presence to end so that he could be MORE than 5-senses present, he could then be SPIRITUALLY present, within. He will return with his personal presence someday. Meanwhile, he is MORE present within us than he was present with his apostles. During the 4 Gospels Jesus' spiritual presence within was absent, i.e., not available yet. Spiritual presence is bigger than the personally present Christ. On the day of Pentecost (though now absent personally) was also now CLOSER and MORE present spiritually. What would you rather have now, today, OldSkool? Choose one; you can't have both. Christ absent personally but present spiritually? ...or Christ absent spiritually but present personally? Let's look at an equivalent way to put this choice or preference. Christ present spiritually but absent personally? ...or Christ present personally but absent spiritually? I underlined the word "spiritually" to help guide your choice, and help you not get distracted by the allure of him being personally available to you now, but NOT within you at all. In the 4 Gospels the apostles had Jesus' personal presence but not Christ within. After Acts 2 the apostles lost his personal presence, but gain Christ in you the hope of glory. Though Christ is absent in the flesh and we no longer know him by the flesh, he is present within in a FAR greater way.

Funny how WRONG you are, cman. What happens to people who reject God's PFAL blessing is NOT the wrath of God. What happens to people who reject God's PFAL blessing IS the pure Word, like it was not known since the first century. You need to learn how to read what is written. Try reading it again.

It appears like I made a mistake in being too quick with one line: QUICK LINE that may have confused you: "If you folks are found guilty of trashing God's biggest work in 2,000 years, the restoration of His Word, then you will soon be knowing how Judas felt at the day of Pentecost. *********************************** EXPANDED ANSWER, of my whole passage that contains the line that it too brief, with my red additions: " IF I am wrong, it is not that big a deal to me, nor to God. I've been wrong before, and forgiven. It's easy for me to bounce back from my errors. Besides, my PFAL stand means I absorb LOTS of KJV verses in my PFAL study, and what I am judged for is how I walk in love on that Word that I know. I would be guilty of overestimating God's love maybe? IF I am right about PFAL being directly from God via 1942 Promise, then you folks are found guilty of trashing God's biggest work in 2,000 years, the restoration of His Word in written PFAL, then you will soon be knowing how Judas felt at the day of Pentecost. What he felt was GREAT shame at getting it ALL wrong. Of course Jesus forgave him, and somehow Judas stumbled thru the 40 days with the apostles, so the apostles forgave him. They probably were too busy condemning their own unbelief at the crucifixion, especially Peter for 6 denials. Then on Pentecost Jesus ascends and disappears from sight, and two angels appear, promising more goodies not many days hence. And the poor natural man that he was, Judas could not take the self condemnation for missing it all so badly. His whole world was turned upside down. I lost his ALL. Now I trust none of you are natural men. Even Raf. Once with Romans 10:9 and the new car behind the curtain is yours. I imagine you all might be able to handle the shame eventually, but there will also be great frustration at what you missed. What did you miss? Look at the beginning of this paragraph and remember the "IF." If I am right, and you rejected it, then you missed YEARS where you could have been applying it to your lives and others and finally getting results. That will be a big deal to you. The Word talks of the possibility of us Christians being ashamed before him at his coming. Maybe Jesus or the Father will walk you thru your posts and show you where you were wrong. Thanks for calling my attention to my error in being too brief to make sense, Rocky. It allowed me to explain it much better.

Sorry. A typo on my part. Slightly rewording it: You fear that your "authority" as GSC expert whistle blowers will be blown." You see, if I am right then you folks are VERY wrong and in spiritually deep do do. So I MUST be right or you lose all that you have built for yourselves. If I am right then you are as wrong as the Pharisees for not recognizing good. If I am wrong, it is not that big a deal to me, nor to God. I've been wrong before, and forgiven. It's easy for me to bounce back from my errors. Besides, my PFAL stand means I absorb LOTS of KJV verses in my PFAL study, and what I am judged for is how I walk in love. If you folks are found guilty of trashing God's biggest work in 2,000 years, the restoration of His Word, then you will soon be knowing how Judas felt at the day of Pentecost. So, you folks just MUST be right and I must be either stopped or discredited. I look confidently at the bema NOT for how I proved things to you, or how many Easter Eggs I find. I will be judged for how I LIVED what is taught in just about any flawed version of the Bible.

Hey, if you think it is important, post it yourself. I don't think it is important fore me to bother with, unless you are baiting me for an ambush, and then I know it is not important. I could not care less if you don't believe I studied it or understand it. Let's see your exposition. I an not baiting you, but relish the thought of learning more. Unlike most authors I can ask you questions if I don't understand a portion. Godel has been described as one of the most difficult intellectual pursuits in the Western culture, but that was long ago, and before Hofstadter made it a little easier 40 years ago, and then more so 15 years ago. The Godel floor is yours.