Mike - I see you can't address the points I brought up regarding "not all", since you are trying to deflect attention back to your failure to explain Wierwille's simile of the supercession of the worlds.
You wrote, "Why do you want to focus totally on that one passage in the Blue Book, when I've repeatedly told you there are many more passages to consider? My question is why are you so silent on bringing in those many other passages."
Why are *you* so silent about giving specific citations for "those many other passages"? Could it possibly be because there aren't any?
I don't find any other place in PFAL where Wierwille explains his simile of the supercession of the worlds. If you do, then please give me specific citations.
Please bring up any other citations you care to, and we'll examine them in detail also. But you can't legitimately accuse me of not bringing up other passages when you can't bring up any other specific passages yourself.
On May 27, 2003, 16:43, (page 16 of this thread) I wrote, "In the real world, when a person puts himself forward as a candidate for mastery in some particular field of knowledge, he isn't just required to write a thesis. He is also required to defend his thesis before a hostile jury. If the candidate can successfully defend his thesis, he is considered to have mastered the material. Evasion of questions and rationalizations of error are signs that the candidate has not mastered the material, and cannot successfully defend his thesis."
Mike - When you demand of me, a member of the hostile jury, that I produce citations to support your thesis, you are admitting that you haven't mastered the material enough to defend your own thesis yourself.
Do your job, Mike. It's *your* responsibility to bring in "those many other passages". If you can't, just say so.
I need to compliment you on your thoughtful and well-worded posts to this thread. The host of this thread has many bad habits as to how he defends his thesis. Therefore it is difficult for a few posters not to resort to name calling or personal attacks when answering him. Your use of logic and a calm voice does have a soothing effect on this thread.
EWB
P.S. Here is a possible answer to your rhetorical question regarding why Mike does not cite a reference for other places that this figure of speech is used: he wants everyone to search PFAL for the answer. This thread is a very thinly-veiled soapbox for him to "preach the Word of Wierwille".
We may be putting a bit too much weight on the construction and grammar of that sentence. The analysis I originally did when I first brought up the elipsis, presumes that Wierwille intentionally constructed the sentence in a precise gramatical manner and intentionally used the figure elipsis. In other words, it treated Wierwilles words in that sentence as if the structure and grammar intentional and exact - like a resesarcher might treat scripture. This might be a mistake. We are not dealing with a perfectly written work where every jot and tittle was placed there by God himself. How do we know that Wierweille intentionally used an elipsis or that he used it correctly? It could just be bad writing.
While good hermeneutics can and should be used when attempting to truly understand any written text - I am not so sure that Wierwille's command and use of language or that of his editors was precise enough to lend itself to to this kind of scrutiny and analysis. In other words, I think is is quite possible and even likely that quite a bit of the construction, grammar/ figures that we find in PFAL may just simply be accidental or random and should not be given too much weight.
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
EWB - Thank you for your kind words. As for your P.S., I don't think Mike was trying to give us incentive to "search the Wierwille". I think he was trying to put me on the defensive. Unfortunately for him, his offense is just as weak as his defense. As Mrs. Slocumb would say on "Are You Being Served", "Weak as water!"
Goey - I agree with you that Wierwille's use of language was far, far from the precision we would expect from a genuine scholar, but sometimes we have to get into the details to show just how imprecise Wierwille's language really was. I personally think he *did* write deliberately to give the impression he was inspired by God, but it's a willfully perverse misreading of the passage from PFAL pg. 83 to contend it claims God-breathed status for Wierwille's writings, as opposed to the Bible.
I think the point in using VP's writings to discredit Mike's assertions is that he thinks that Wierwille wrote that precisely. I don't. Having seen a few of Mr. Wierwille's first drafts, I know that his editors had a lot to do with making VP look good in print. Perhaps someone from Word Processing in those days could speak more about that....
Then we might be talking about God-breathed editors! --> Oy!
I will produce more references. I?ve been culling through the 80 I mentioned last month. I?ve whittled it down to 50, and will soon pick out the best 10 or 20.
Time is at a premium just now. I wish I had time to answer all, so hang in there.
You have a valid point. I have spent MANY hours looking into that which you?ve brought up, by interviewing people who edited for him. Dr mentions them in an interesting way, in a VERY interesting way, at the end of the Preface to ?Receiving the Holy Spirit Today.?
?To his helpers and colleagues every writer owes a profound debt. This seventh edition has been read and studied carefully by men and women of Biblical and spiritual ability.?
Notice that he says ?Biblical AND spiritual ability.? The Biblical means 5-senses, and the spiritual means spiritual. In other words, OTHER members of the team got revelation too! The PFAL writings were bigger than Dr; they were a TEAM effort, and GOD supervised it all on the spiritual level.
Dr mentions this same topic in the Thessalonians tapes where Paul, Silas, and Timothy are all mentioned as authors. This same topic has come up on GS too.
quote:Notice that he says ?Biblical AND spiritual ability.? The Biblical means 5-senses, and the spiritual means spiritual. In other words, OTHER members of the team got revelation too! The PFAL writings were bigger than Dr; they were a TEAM effort, and GOD supervised it all on the spiritual level.
But wait folks, thats not all!
Now watch Mike pull a rabbit of of his hat! -- Grrrrrr ! -- Oops, wrong hat.
Mike, you have stated on more than one occassion that the Bible was a collection of remnants that are "unreliable" . So then to be consistent it would seem that 'Biblical' should mean 'unreliable'.
And how did this team get their spiritual ablilty? Was it from the study of the "unreliable Bible" that Wierwille promoted? Also consider that Wierwille said "spiritual ability". According to Wierwille, one can be able but not necessarily willing. Just being 'able' to get revelation (assuming this is the case) does not necessarily meant they got it. That is a leap in logic.
But anyway, according to your previoulsy stated view of the Bible, Wierwille would have had a team that was - unreliable and spiritual.
Gotta love it. Mike is consistently inconsistent and profoundly imaginative.
Goey
Edited to correct quote of "unreliable remnants" to - remnants that are "unreliable."
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
[This message was edited by Goey on June 03, 2003 at 12:04.]
Wierwille wrote, "As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supercedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God; so, there is a natural world and a supernatural or spiritual world."
Mike included this statement in his introduction to the topic of this thread, and also wrote concerning "Christ Formed In You", "This teaching depends heavily on an understanding of the Natural/Factual versus the Spiritual/True."
Since Mike has founded his thesis on our understanding of this quote from Wierwille, I asked the question "In what way do these kingdoms supercede each other, such that their supercession can be used as an illustration of how the supernatural world supercedes the natural world?"
In a post of May 28, 2003, 03:47, Mike attempted an answer to my question.
In a post of May 29, 2003, 16:48, I pointed out how Mike's answer failed on three counts, it was incomplete, it was circular, and it defied diagramming with the use of Euler's circles.
To date, Mike has not made another attempt at answering my question. Instead, he has tried to shift his burden onto me, demanding that *I* find passages in PFAL to support *his* position. What a curiously perverse demand, indeed!
Currently, Mike is in the process of winnowing down his purported 80 or so supporting passages. Here is a criterion that will help him narrow the field.
Mike, if a passage doesn't bear on answering my original question, "In what way do these kingdoms supercede each other, such that their supercession can be used as an illustration of how the supernatural world supercedes the natural world?", then you can discount it. I certainly will.
I hope this helps speed your return to dialogue on this question.
"In 2 Timothy 3, where it reads, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," "all scripture" means without any exception from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21."
Mike-
"unreliable fragments AND tattered remnants."
VPW-
"This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever. It endures, it stands. Let's see this from John 5:39. "Search the scriptures...."
Mike-
"unreliable fragments AND tattered remnants."
VPW-
"The Scriptures tell us the truth about the Lord Jesus Christ, and about God: this is doctrine - it is right believing."
When Dr mentions ?scriptures? in your quotes, he is referring to the ORIGINALS, in their original understanding.
When I say "unreliable fragments AND tattered remnants" I am referring to the MODERN hand-me-down versions of scripture, along with the usual suspects like Greek translators.
There?s almost 2000 years difference in the two topics you?ve fused into one.
***************
When I say "unreliable fragments AND tattered remnants" I am referring to the area of how WE are to operate all nine all the time.
In the different area of how a beginning student of PFAL should approach the scriptures, then working a KJV is fine, and even a formal requirement for attending the first session of PFAL.
For many areas of the renewed mind prior to 1982 the KJV, along with the accumulating inspired PFAL writings in assistance, was a big part of God?s plan of development for us.
After 1982 we all were supposed to turn our attention to mastering the PFAL writings. Dr started gently saying this in that year and stepped up the intensity of this message until his last words were up front in the open and repeated twice in a very short teaching.
The REASON for the 1942 intervention and the PFAL writings, was to make the perfectly renewed mind available for the first time in written form. This was a very new thing that happened in 1982.
The perfectly renewed mind cannot be received from KJV study, but it can be received by mastering the PFAL writings, including it's repetition of many KJV verses.
**************
Most of the KJV verses you all find most crucial are printed in the PFAL writings, and given a rightful context and foundation for us in our time now. In a practical sense, mastering PFAL would INCLUDE mastering a very hefty portion of the KJV. There?s nothing missing in the PFAL diet.
*************
In my 80 some PFAL passages on the Natural/Spiritual dichotomy, at least 5 look to be what Steve wants from my own paraphrasing.
Most of my notes are in hand writing, so transcribing the page numbers and some pertinent text can go slow at times. Also, as EWB surmised, this clever ploy of mine may tempt some posting or lurking GreaseSpot readers to search out a few in their tattered remnants of PFAL writings. I?m including magazines and tapes here, too. As some home detectives search for the dichotomy WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE THEY?LL FIND! This could get rich.
The passage I first posted (on pages 23 and 24 of BTMS) is, as I stated there, one of the FIRST occurrences, but it is certainly not the last.
That no one so far, for months now, has come up with the other occurrences is very telling. Either the PFAL message was only partially received, or some leaked out, or both.
[This message was edited by Mike on June 03, 2003 at 12:27.]
[This message was edited by Mike on June 03, 2003 at 12:29.]
You are not the first to attempt to hound me into some dumb derailment or distraction. I will focus my limited time where it seems it will be better spent. Your badgering me in the past has proved to be myopic, but you seem to have not learned from that incident. You started a whole thread to try and beat something out of me, and in the end you looked pretty shabby.
If you want to know what Dr means on those pages in the Blue Book, get meek and read it!
You said that you had studied PFAL years ago, and I'm proving to you either did a partial job, or some has leaked out, or both.
There's no great difficulty in understanding those pages when someone reads these things with meekness, and the reading is thorough. Keep reading PFAL and you'll have no problem understanding those pages. Keep goading me and you'll NOT understand those pages. You decide.
Do you want to understand them, or do you more want to tear down understanding of those pages?
My educated guess is that you are desiring to tear down, so as a result, you and your demands plummet on my time priority charts. If this guess is wrong, then you have a large and challenging job of proving this guess wrong before I?ll change my strategy. Try proving to me that you want to understand, to learn, to be coached, to be meek. I'm waiting.
Here are a few more thoughts about the sentence, "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed."
Shazdancer pointed out that, by using the phrase "not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts", Wierwille was saying that their works were in the same catagory as his own writings.
Mike replied, "I see those names handled differently on that page 83 of PFAL."
On page 60 of "The Handbook of Good English" (Facts On File Publications, 1982) Edward D. Johnson wrote, "Parenthetical constructions are often called nonrestrictive, because they do not restrict the meaning of the word or words they relate to but instead expand on that meaning; they could be removed from the sentence without changing the basic meaning."
So we see that the construction in Wierwille's sentence, far from setting the works of Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham and Roberts in contrast to his own, expands the meaning to *include* their works along with Wierwille's in the basic meaning of the sentence.
On June 01, 2003, 05:21, regarding Mike's interpretation of Wierwille's "not all" sentence, Goey wrote, "That is one of the most dishonest twistings of language that I have ever seen."
Mike replied in part, "That one word 'necessarily' sets up a local contra-context, from which you feel the twist. It's a tiny island where the context is exactly reversed."
Surprise, surprise! There *are* words in English that function like Mike's "local contra-contexts". They are conjunctions of contrast such as "but" and "however". There actually is one in the sentence under consideration, "...but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed." Unfortunately for Mike's position, "necessarily" is *not* a conjunction of contrast.
By placing his own writings, along with the works of Calvin, et al., on the other side of the "but" from "the Scriptures", Wierwille himself lumps his own writings together with theirs, and sets all in contrast with the God-breathedness of the Scriptures.
You wrote, "Your badgering me in the past has proved to be myopic, but you seem not to have learned from that incident. You started a whole thread to try and beat something out of me, and in the end you looked pretty shabby."
I saw a place where you were in error, and I set out to explore what it would take to get you to see/admit it. *You* seem not to have learned from that incident. In the end, you *did* admit that you were wrong. If you had been forthcoming about the whole thing, I wouldn't have needed to "beat" it out of you. Shabbiness is in the eye of the beholder.
You wrote, "You said that you had studied PFAL years ago, and I'm proving to you either did a partial job, or some has leaked out, or both."
I have studied PFAL off and on for the past 23 years. The most recent stint began when I realized Wierwille was wrong about his "administrations". Since then I have participated in Jerry Barrax' and Rafael Olmeda's review threads. I have the books, and I have referred to them frequently during my discourses with you. I am basing my discussions with you on the written materials, so the resources at my command are not partial or leaky.
You wrote, "Keep reading PFAL and you'll have no problem understanding those pages..."
Right now, I'm having a problem understanding the sentence where Wierwille set forth his simile of the supercession of the worlds. I know that I'm not going to gain anything by glossing over Wierwille's failure to communicate a coherent idea, basing my understanding of other areas of PFAL on this error.
You wrote, "Do you want to understand them, or do you want to tear down understanding of those pages."
I understand them only too well. I can separate truth from error, and I see plently of both all over PFAL. When I see one of Wierwille's "understandings" that stands between me and a more accurate knowledge of God through His son, Jesus Christ, I will most heartily and most joyfully tear that "understanding" down.
"The perfectly renewed mind cannot be received from KJV study, but it can be received by mastering the PFAL writings, including it's repetition of many KJV verses."
Seriously Mike. I really want to know where this is promised in PFAL. Chapter and verse if you will. I can read about the renewed mind in Romans, and I know what VPW wrote and taught about the renewed mind in PFAL.
Dr. taught us that when we have such needs in our lives we can find that promise in the scriptures (as I am asserting here) that will meet that need and believe the Word in that category so as to recieve that which is promised in the scriptures. Where in PFAL does he say that by mastering PFAL we will have a perfectly renewed mind?
Page 331 -
Phillipians 2:5
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.
"That is the renewed mind. Christ always did the will of the Father. He always carried out his word perfectly. When we let His mind be in us which was in Christ Jesus, we will have a perfectly renewed mind."
You changed a few words here, Mike. Your idea of how to have a perfectly renewed mind is not the same as what is in PFAL.
One other point.
You wrote:
"When Dr mentions ?scriptures? in your quotes, he is referring to the ORIGINALS, in their original understanding."
When did he say that's what he was referring to? If that is what he meant why didn't he say that. This is what you have interpreted.
He still references Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. This statement is in reference to a version of the scriptures that has chapters and verses. The originals did not have chapters or verses in them (as you remember learning in PFAL). Yet he says Genesis 1:1 (Chapter 1 verse 1) to Revelation 22:21 (Chapter 22 verse 21).
Your assertions that this is talking about two different "topics" contradicts this. If there are two different "topics" between the older originals and the newer versions he certainly referenced the new by including the chapters and verses in his declaration that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," "all scripture" means without any exception from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21." ALL without any exception, he does not say ALL without distinction.
The very section of PFAL where this is quoted from explains the difference between exception and distinction. If the texts he were talking about here were that watered down he would have had to define them as without distinction. But he makes such a definitive statement that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," "all scripture" means without any exception from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21." The chapters and verses must be kept as part of the statement.
If he was talking about the "original" texts why did he include the chapters and verses in such an explicit statement?
[This message was edited by dizzydog on June 03, 2003 at 18:18.]
Actually I think I understand you better than you might imagine. I would have more motivation to mastering the PFAL materials if I did not see so much idolatry of Wierwille in your posts.
The rest of us have schedules or to-do lists. Smikeol has "time priority charts". Wow! Something like that must mean that he has w-a-a-y-y too much time on his hands.
"He still references Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. This statement is in reference to a version of the scriptures that has chapters and verses. ..."
Now ya gone and done it. --> SMikeol is now going to rearrange and recompile the PFAL and associated books-- Ooops, I mean Books into Chapter and Verse format, complete with italics (for those additions put in in later editions), gold edged pages, and maybe a little red book mark ribbon to put right down the middle of Session 5.
:D-->
Mike wroteth:
"The perfectly renewed mind cannot be received from KJV study, but it can be received by mastering the PFAL writings, including it's repetition of many KJV verses."
Mike, Mike, Mike,
Next time you go and grab some coffee, stop and look at that white powder that you're dunking in there. Look **r-e-a-l** carefully now. ... Are you sure that its Sweet N' Low?
Rumor has it that a Grease Spot poster heard our beloved Mikey saying.
"I have spent so many years studying PFAL material such that I am having a hard time remembering other written works. But does it say somewhere something like, "Search the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life"? Or was that search the collaterals? I really get confused sometimes."
"When Dr mentions ?scriptures? in your quotes, he is referring to the ORIGINALS, in their original understanding."
I just read what VPW said about getting back to the original God-breathed Word.
Here it is:
PFAL
Page 128 -
"Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another word and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all the verses. If it is the Word of God, then it cannot have a contradiction for God cannot contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding. When we get back to that original, God-breathed Word - which I am confident we can - then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the prophets of old, "Thus saith the Lord."
Here VPW is advocating an intensive study of those very scriptures you have called "unreliable fragments AND tattered remnants". What else could he be emphasizing we study? Remember what 2 Timothy 2:15 says?
I would suggest one thing to you Mike. VPW's reason for encouraging a mastery of PFAL was not because he was declaring it to be the next scripture. He advocated this because he had declared how perfect God's Word, the scriptures were, when studied this way, in the class. His drive to have others master PFAL was a drive to get people to study God's Word, the scriptures as defined on page 66.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
82
119
656
81
Popular Days
Jun 15
86
Jul 3
73
Jul 12
50
Mar 31
49
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 82 posts
mj412 119 posts
Mike 656 posts
Steve Lortz 81 posts
Popular Days
Jun 15 2003
86 posts
Jul 3 2003
73 posts
Jul 12 2003
50 posts
Mar 31 2003
49 posts
Popular Posts
Yanagisawa
Did you say "get the ball rolling" or get the kaballa rolling...for it sounds like that's your current freak - some sort of hidden, mystical kaballa-esque gnostic esotericism. I'm fascinated with you
Steve Lortz
Mike - I see you can't address the points I brought up regarding "not all", since you are trying to deflect attention back to your failure to explain Wierwille's simile of the supercession of the worlds.
You wrote, "Why do you want to focus totally on that one passage in the Blue Book, when I've repeatedly told you there are many more passages to consider? My question is why are you so silent on bringing in those many other passages."
Why are *you* so silent about giving specific citations for "those many other passages"? Could it possibly be because there aren't any?
I don't find any other place in PFAL where Wierwille explains his simile of the supercession of the worlds. If you do, then please give me specific citations.
Please bring up any other citations you care to, and we'll examine them in detail also. But you can't legitimately accuse me of not bringing up other passages when you can't bring up any other specific passages yourself.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
On May 27, 2003, 16:43, (page 16 of this thread) I wrote, "In the real world, when a person puts himself forward as a candidate for mastery in some particular field of knowledge, he isn't just required to write a thesis. He is also required to defend his thesis before a hostile jury. If the candidate can successfully defend his thesis, he is considered to have mastered the material. Evasion of questions and rationalizations of error are signs that the candidate has not mastered the material, and cannot successfully defend his thesis."
Mike - When you demand of me, a member of the hostile jury, that I produce citations to support your thesis, you are admitting that you haven't mastered the material enough to defend your own thesis yourself.
Do your job, Mike. It's *your* responsibility to bring in "those many other passages". If you can't, just say so.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
E. W. Bullinger
Dear Steve Lortz:
I need to compliment you on your thoughtful and well-worded posts to this thread. The host of this thread has many bad habits as to how he defends his thesis. Therefore it is difficult for a few posters not to resort to name calling or personal attacks when answering him. Your use of logic and a calm voice does have a soothing effect on this thread.
EWB
P.S. Here is a possible answer to your rhetorical question regarding why Mike does not cite a reference for other places that this figure of speech is used: he wants everyone to search PFAL for the answer. This thread is a very thinly-veiled soapbox for him to "preach the Word of Wierwille".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Steve, Shazdancer, WordWolf, et.al.
We may be putting a bit too much weight on the construction and grammar of that sentence. The analysis I originally did when I first brought up the elipsis, presumes that Wierwille intentionally constructed the sentence in a precise gramatical manner and intentionally used the figure elipsis. In other words, it treated Wierwilles words in that sentence as if the structure and grammar intentional and exact - like a resesarcher might treat scripture. This might be a mistake. We are not dealing with a perfectly written work where every jot and tittle was placed there by God himself. How do we know that Wierweille intentionally used an elipsis or that he used it correctly? It could just be bad writing.
While good hermeneutics can and should be used when attempting to truly understand any written text - I am not so sure that Wierwille's command and use of language or that of his editors was precise enough to lend itself to to this kind of scrutiny and analysis. In other words, I think is is quite possible and even likely that quite a bit of the construction, grammar/ figures that we find in PFAL may just simply be accidental or random and should not be given too much weight.
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
EWB - Thank you for your kind words. As for your P.S., I don't think Mike was trying to give us incentive to "search the Wierwille". I think he was trying to put me on the defensive. Unfortunately for him, his offense is just as weak as his defense. As Mrs. Slocumb would say on "Are You Being Served", "Weak as water!"
Goey - I agree with you that Wierwille's use of language was far, far from the precision we would expect from a genuine scholar, but sometimes we have to get into the details to show just how imprecise Wierwille's language really was. I personally think he *did* write deliberately to give the impression he was inspired by God, but it's a willfully perverse misreading of the passage from PFAL pg. 83 to contend it claims God-breathed status for Wierwille's writings, as opposed to the Bible.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Goey,
I think the point in using VP's writings to discredit Mike's assertions is that he thinks that Wierwille wrote that precisely. I don't. Having seen a few of Mr. Wierwille's first drafts, I know that his editors had a lot to do with making VP look good in print. Perhaps someone from Word Processing in those days could speak more about that....
Then we might be talking about God-breathed editors!
--> Oy!
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
EWB,
You?re partially on to me.
Steve,
I will produce more references. I?ve been culling through the 80 I mentioned last month. I?ve whittled it down to 50, and will soon pick out the best 10 or 20.
Time is at a premium just now. I wish I had time to answer all, so hang in there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
shazdancer,
You have a valid point. I have spent MANY hours looking into that which you?ve brought up, by interviewing people who edited for him. Dr mentions them in an interesting way, in a VERY interesting way, at the end of the Preface to ?Receiving the Holy Spirit Today.?
?To his helpers and colleagues every writer owes a profound debt. This seventh edition has been read and studied carefully by men and women of Biblical and spiritual ability.?
Notice that he says ?Biblical AND spiritual ability.? The Biblical means 5-senses, and the spiritual means spiritual. In other words, OTHER members of the team got revelation too! The PFAL writings were bigger than Dr; they were a TEAM effort, and GOD supervised it all on the spiritual level.
Dr mentions this same topic in the Thessalonians tapes where Paul, Silas, and Timothy are all mentioned as authors. This same topic has come up on GS too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike Posted,
But wait folks, thats not all!
Now watch Mike pull a rabbit of of his hat! -- Grrrrrr ! -- Oops, wrong hat.
Mike, you have stated on more than one occassion that the Bible was a collection of remnants that are "unreliable" . So then to be consistent it would seem that 'Biblical' should mean 'unreliable'.
And how did this team get their spiritual ablilty? Was it from the study of the "unreliable Bible" that Wierwille promoted? Also consider that Wierwille said "spiritual ability". According to Wierwille, one can be able but not necessarily willing. Just being 'able' to get revelation (assuming this is the case) does not necessarily meant they got it. That is a leap in logic.
But anyway, according to your previoulsy stated view of the Bible, Wierwille would have had a team that was - unreliable and spiritual.
Gotta love it. Mike is consistently inconsistent and profoundly imaginative.
Goey
Edited to correct quote of "unreliable remnants" to - remnants that are "unreliable."
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
[This message was edited by Goey on June 03, 2003 at 12:04.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Goey,
unless you're quoting from something I never
read here, Mike called the modern version
"unreliable fragments AND tattered remnants."
(Then again, the overall meaning was
preserved in your quote.)
---------------------------------------
Hold everything......
...Mike, did you say you were currently
working on an answer to Steve's question, and
would present it soon?
"I will produce more references. I've been
culling through the 80 I mentioned last month.
I've whittled it down to 50, and will soon pick
out the best 10 or 20." (6/03/03, 1:49am.)
That was in response to Steve's reminder that
"It's *your responsibility to bring in
'those many other passages'. If you can't just
say so." (6/02/03 1:43pm)
I may not be an expert in Mike-idioms, but, by
golly, sounds like that's what you said.
So, is that what you meant?
If not, please explain what you DID mean.
If so, give us a ballpark. Will we see this list
sometime before, say, 6/15? 7/4? End of
summer?
(I, for one, can refrain from asking beforetime
if I have an estimate to work from.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Wierwille wrote, "As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supercedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God; so, there is a natural world and a supernatural or spiritual world."
Mike included this statement in his introduction to the topic of this thread, and also wrote concerning "Christ Formed In You", "This teaching depends heavily on an understanding of the Natural/Factual versus the Spiritual/True."
Since Mike has founded his thesis on our understanding of this quote from Wierwille, I asked the question "In what way do these kingdoms supercede each other, such that their supercession can be used as an illustration of how the supernatural world supercedes the natural world?"
In a post of May 28, 2003, 03:47, Mike attempted an answer to my question.
In a post of May 29, 2003, 16:48, I pointed out how Mike's answer failed on three counts, it was incomplete, it was circular, and it defied diagramming with the use of Euler's circles.
To date, Mike has not made another attempt at answering my question. Instead, he has tried to shift his burden onto me, demanding that *I* find passages in PFAL to support *his* position. What a curiously perverse demand, indeed!
Currently, Mike is in the process of winnowing down his purported 80 or so supporting passages. Here is a criterion that will help him narrow the field.
Mike, if a passage doesn't bear on answering my original question, "In what way do these kingdoms supercede each other, such that their supercession can be used as an illustration of how the supernatural world supercedes the natural world?", then you can discount it. I certainly will.
I hope this helps speed your return to dialogue on this question.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dizzydog
VPW -
"In 2 Timothy 3, where it reads, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," "all scripture" means without any exception from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21."
Mike-
"unreliable fragments AND tattered remnants."
VPW-
"This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever. It endures, it stands. Let's see this from John 5:39. "Search the scriptures...."
Mike-
"unreliable fragments AND tattered remnants."
VPW-
"The Scriptures tell us the truth about the Lord Jesus Christ, and about God: this is doctrine - it is right believing."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dizzydog,
When Dr mentions ?scriptures? in your quotes, he is referring to the ORIGINALS, in their original understanding.
When I say "unreliable fragments AND tattered remnants" I am referring to the MODERN hand-me-down versions of scripture, along with the usual suspects like Greek translators.
There?s almost 2000 years difference in the two topics you?ve fused into one.
***************
When I say "unreliable fragments AND tattered remnants" I am referring to the area of how WE are to operate all nine all the time.
In the different area of how a beginning student of PFAL should approach the scriptures, then working a KJV is fine, and even a formal requirement for attending the first session of PFAL.
For many areas of the renewed mind prior to 1982 the KJV, along with the accumulating inspired PFAL writings in assistance, was a big part of God?s plan of development for us.
After 1982 we all were supposed to turn our attention to mastering the PFAL writings. Dr started gently saying this in that year and stepped up the intensity of this message until his last words were up front in the open and repeated twice in a very short teaching.
The REASON for the 1942 intervention and the PFAL writings, was to make the perfectly renewed mind available for the first time in written form. This was a very new thing that happened in 1982.
The perfectly renewed mind cannot be received from KJV study, but it can be received by mastering the PFAL writings, including it's repetition of many KJV verses.
**************
Most of the KJV verses you all find most crucial are printed in the PFAL writings, and given a rightful context and foundation for us in our time now. In a practical sense, mastering PFAL would INCLUDE mastering a very hefty portion of the KJV. There?s nothing missing in the PFAL diet.
*************
In my 80 some PFAL passages on the Natural/Spiritual dichotomy, at least 5 look to be what Steve wants from my own paraphrasing.
Most of my notes are in hand writing, so transcribing the page numbers and some pertinent text can go slow at times. Also, as EWB surmised, this clever ploy of mine may tempt some posting or lurking GreaseSpot readers to search out a few in their tattered remnants of PFAL writings. I?m including magazines and tapes here, too. As some home detectives search for the dichotomy WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE THEY?LL FIND! This could get rich.
The passage I first posted (on pages 23 and 24 of BTMS) is, as I stated there, one of the FIRST occurrences, but it is certainly not the last.
That no one so far, for months now, has come up with the other occurrences is very telling. Either the PFAL message was only partially received, or some leaked out, or both.
[This message was edited by Mike on June 03, 2003 at 12:27.]
[This message was edited by Mike on June 03, 2003 at 12:29.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve,
You are not the first to attempt to hound me into some dumb derailment or distraction. I will focus my limited time where it seems it will be better spent. Your badgering me in the past has proved to be myopic, but you seem to have not learned from that incident. You started a whole thread to try and beat something out of me, and in the end you looked pretty shabby.
If you want to know what Dr means on those pages in the Blue Book, get meek and read it!
You said that you had studied PFAL years ago, and I'm proving to you either did a partial job, or some has leaked out, or both.
There's no great difficulty in understanding those pages when someone reads these things with meekness, and the reading is thorough. Keep reading PFAL and you'll have no problem understanding those pages. Keep goading me and you'll NOT understand those pages. You decide.
Do you want to understand them, or do you more want to tear down understanding of those pages?
My educated guess is that you are desiring to tear down, so as a result, you and your demands plummet on my time priority charts. If this guess is wrong, then you have a large and challenging job of proving this guess wrong before I?ll change my strategy. Try proving to me that you want to understand, to learn, to be coached, to be meek. I'm waiting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Here are a few more thoughts about the sentence, "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed."
Shazdancer pointed out that, by using the phrase "not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts", Wierwille was saying that their works were in the same catagory as his own writings.
Mike replied, "I see those names handled differently on that page 83 of PFAL."
On page 60 of "The Handbook of Good English" (Facts On File Publications, 1982) Edward D. Johnson wrote, "Parenthetical constructions are often called nonrestrictive, because they do not restrict the meaning of the word or words they relate to but instead expand on that meaning; they could be removed from the sentence without changing the basic meaning."
So we see that the construction in Wierwille's sentence, far from setting the works of Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham and Roberts in contrast to his own, expands the meaning to *include* their works along with Wierwille's in the basic meaning of the sentence.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Mike - All I am proving, with your very able assistance, is that you are wrong in your assessment that PFAL was God-breathed. It isn't hard to do.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
On June 01, 2003, 05:21, regarding Mike's interpretation of Wierwille's "not all" sentence, Goey wrote, "That is one of the most dishonest twistings of language that I have ever seen."
Mike replied in part, "That one word 'necessarily' sets up a local contra-context, from which you feel the twist. It's a tiny island where the context is exactly reversed."
Surprise, surprise! There *are* words in English that function like Mike's "local contra-contexts". They are conjunctions of contrast such as "but" and "however". There actually is one in the sentence under consideration, "...but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed." Unfortunately for Mike's position, "necessarily" is *not* a conjunction of contrast.
By placing his own writings, along with the works of Calvin, et al., on the other side of the "but" from "the Scriptures", Wierwille himself lumps his own writings together with theirs, and sets all in contrast with the God-breathedness of the Scriptures.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Mike - Please calm down!
You wrote, "Your badgering me in the past has proved to be myopic, but you seem not to have learned from that incident. You started a whole thread to try and beat something out of me, and in the end you looked pretty shabby."
I saw a place where you were in error, and I set out to explore what it would take to get you to see/admit it. *You* seem not to have learned from that incident. In the end, you *did* admit that you were wrong. If you had been forthcoming about the whole thing, I wouldn't have needed to "beat" it out of you. Shabbiness is in the eye of the beholder.
You wrote, "You said that you had studied PFAL years ago, and I'm proving to you either did a partial job, or some has leaked out, or both."
I have studied PFAL off and on for the past 23 years. The most recent stint began when I realized Wierwille was wrong about his "administrations". Since then I have participated in Jerry Barrax' and Rafael Olmeda's review threads. I have the books, and I have referred to them frequently during my discourses with you. I am basing my discussions with you on the written materials, so the resources at my command are not partial or leaky.
You wrote, "Keep reading PFAL and you'll have no problem understanding those pages..."
Right now, I'm having a problem understanding the sentence where Wierwille set forth his simile of the supercession of the worlds. I know that I'm not going to gain anything by glossing over Wierwille's failure to communicate a coherent idea, basing my understanding of other areas of PFAL on this error.
You wrote, "Do you want to understand them, or do you want to tear down understanding of those pages."
I understand them only too well. I can separate truth from error, and I see plently of both all over PFAL. When I see one of Wierwille's "understandings" that stands between me and a more accurate knowledge of God through His son, Jesus Christ, I will most heartily and most joyfully tear that "understanding" down.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dizzydog
Mike wrote:
"The perfectly renewed mind cannot be received from KJV study, but it can be received by mastering the PFAL writings, including it's repetition of many KJV verses."
Seriously Mike. I really want to know where this is promised in PFAL. Chapter and verse if you will. I can read about the renewed mind in Romans, and I know what VPW wrote and taught about the renewed mind in PFAL.
Dr. taught us that when we have such needs in our lives we can find that promise in the scriptures (as I am asserting here) that will meet that need and believe the Word in that category so as to recieve that which is promised in the scriptures. Where in PFAL does he say that by mastering PFAL we will have a perfectly renewed mind?
Page 331 -
Phillipians 2:5
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.
"That is the renewed mind. Christ always did the will of the Father. He always carried out his word perfectly. When we let His mind be in us which was in Christ Jesus, we will have a perfectly renewed mind."
You changed a few words here, Mike. Your idea of how to have a perfectly renewed mind is not the same as what is in PFAL.
One other point.
You wrote:
"When Dr mentions ?scriptures? in your quotes, he is referring to the ORIGINALS, in their original understanding."
When did he say that's what he was referring to? If that is what he meant why didn't he say that. This is what you have interpreted.
He still references Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. This statement is in reference to a version of the scriptures that has chapters and verses. The originals did not have chapters or verses in them (as you remember learning in PFAL). Yet he says Genesis 1:1 (Chapter 1 verse 1) to Revelation 22:21 (Chapter 22 verse 21).
Your assertions that this is talking about two different "topics" contradicts this. If there are two different "topics" between the older originals and the newer versions he certainly referenced the new by including the chapters and verses in his declaration that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," "all scripture" means without any exception from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21." ALL without any exception, he does not say ALL without distinction.
The very section of PFAL where this is quoted from explains the difference between exception and distinction. If the texts he were talking about here were that watered down he would have had to define them as without distinction. But he makes such a definitive statement that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," "all scripture" means without any exception from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21." The chapters and verses must be kept as part of the statement.
If he was talking about the "original" texts why did he include the chapters and verses in such an explicit statement?
[This message was edited by dizzydog on June 03, 2003 at 18:18.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
E. W. Bullinger
Dear Mike:
Actually I think I understand you better than you might imagine. I would have more motivation to mastering the PFAL materials if I did not see so much idolatry of Wierwille in your posts.
EWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Jeepers!
-->
The rest of us have schedules or to-do lists. Smikeol has "time priority charts". Wow!
Something like that must mean that he has w-a-a-y-y too much time on his hands.
"He still references Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. This statement is in reference to a version of the scriptures that has chapters and verses. ..."
Now ya gone and done it.
--> SMikeol is now going to rearrange and recompile the PFAL and associated books-- Ooops, I mean Books into Chapter and Verse format, complete with italics (for those additions put in in later editions), gold edged pages, and maybe a little red book mark ribbon to put right down the middle of Session 5.
Mike wroteth:
"The perfectly renewed mind cannot be received from KJV study, but it can be received by mastering the PFAL writings, including it's repetition of many KJV verses."
Mike, Mike, Mike,
Next time you go and grab some coffee, stop and look at that white powder that you're dunking in there. Look **r-e-a-l** carefully now. ... Are you sure that its Sweet N' Low?
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Rumor has it that a Grease Spot poster heard our beloved Mikey saying.
"I have spent so many years studying PFAL material such that I am having a hard time remembering other written works. But does it say somewhere something like, "Search the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life"? Or was that search the collaterals? I really get confused sometimes."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dizzydog
Mike Wrote -
"When Dr mentions ?scriptures? in your quotes, he is referring to the ORIGINALS, in their original understanding."
I just read what VPW said about getting back to the original God-breathed Word.
Here it is:
PFAL
Page 128 -
"Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another word and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all the verses. If it is the Word of God, then it cannot have a contradiction for God cannot contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding. When we get back to that original, God-breathed Word - which I am confident we can - then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the prophets of old, "Thus saith the Lord."
Here VPW is advocating an intensive study of those very scriptures you have called "unreliable fragments AND tattered remnants". What else could he be emphasizing we study? Remember what 2 Timothy 2:15 says?
I would suggest one thing to you Mike. VPW's reason for encouraging a mastery of PFAL was not because he was declaring it to be the next scripture. He advocated this because he had declared how perfect God's Word, the scriptures were, when studied this way, in the class. His drive to have others master PFAL was a drive to get people to study God's Word, the scriptures as defined on page 66.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dizzydog,
Here are some quotes that have been somewhat forgotten.
In the film class (segment 16, page 127 in the book) Dr. says:
"No translation, no translation, and I want you to listen
very carefully; for no translation, and by the way that's
all we have today at best are translations. No translation
may properly be called The Word Of God... ..no translation!"
Then a minute later he repeats:
"Now I said that no translation, no translation, let alone
a version, no translation may properly be called The Word
Of God..."
Then several minutes later he hits it again:
"And in this class on Power For Abundant Living, when I
refer to The Word Of God I may hold the King James Version
or I may hold some other version and point to it; I do not
mean that version. I mean that Word of God which was
originally given when holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Spirit."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.