A note on forgiving

[brideofjc]

2 Timothy 3:17

ἵνα ἄρτιος ᾖ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένος

Trans:

So that the man of God might be perfected towards every good work; fully equipped.

Translating this out, I would put a semicolon after work and leave out the comma that the UBS4 inserts (after "man" in the Greek text) but in the English it would come after "perfected". Reason being is this: the verse in Greek opens with a with a "hina" clause which is translated as "so that", then a word in the subjunctive mood that is then translated as "he might be" which then entails that this is the desired state, and then the final result. Per Mounce: "the subjunctive mood is used when a verb expresses a possibility, probability, exhortation, or axiomatic concept." All four could fit here because it would entail what type of ground it is being sown into, which would differ with each person. So to be fully equipped is the axiomatic concept which should happen if everything is in place within the individual who is submitted to the Holy Spirit's tutelage. In the Greek ἐξηρτισμένος is a "perfect passive participle" which simply means that this work is not being "worked out" by the individual, but it is being applied to the individual, namely by the Holy Spirit and with the "perfect" tense it denotes that the "action" was done in the past but the effects are ongoing. Just try and meditate on that for a while, it's pretty mind boggling in itself.

As far as the word "all" in this verse, it is from the paradigm of "pas, pasa, pan" and in pronouncing it the first "A" should sound like "AHHH." In the singular, it is translated as "all"; if the substantive has the article it can be translated as "the whole, entire," in those cases where the substantive is anarthrous, it can be translated as "every". Which is why I translate it as "every" since the substantive "work" is singular and lacks the article.

So to get the full flavor of v17 one must look back at the context of v16:

KJV- "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS:"

which is why v.17 opens with a "hina" clause, then includes the mood of possibility and ends with the desired state. The "good work" doesn't necessarily entail doing good to those around you, not that it would be excluded, but first the Word of God has to be (at least) in process of becoming grounded within the person first, then put into operation towards others. But the main thing is within ourselves receiving the DOCTRINE, and when we're wrong - being REPROVED and then CORRECTED, for the end of being INSTRUCTED IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, so that we become "fully equipped."

Here WordWolf....I posted this on 2 Timothy 3:17

[brideofjc]

Here's the "wiki" on Venn Diagrams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram

Here's the "wiki" on Boolean Logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_logic

Would you be so kind as to show me how this demonstrates that "all without exception" is somehow different from "all without distinction"?

(What with me not being a computer engineer or mathematician, ya know?)

C'mon Waysider, you didn't scroll down the entire page......

"The following example involves two sets, A and B, represented here as coloured circles."

You are joking, aren't you?

That's, perhaps the most moronic explanation I've ever heard.

Now, before you get your panties in a bunch, I did not call you a moron, I said the explanation was moronic.

Try this, why don't you.

Present that same demonstration to someone who knows nothing about TWI and observe their response.

"All without exception" means the same thing as "all without distinction".

You don't need a PhD in English to understand that.

Phew! i'm sure glad you said that!

[brideofjc]

Here's the "wiki" on Venn Diagrams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram

Here's the "wiki" on Boolean Logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_logic

Would you be so kind as to show me how this demonstrates that "all without exception" is somehow different from "all without distinction"?

(What with me not being a computer engineer or mathematician, ya know?)

"Using the algebra of sets, this article contains a basic introduction to sets, Boolean operations, Venn diagrams, truth tables, and Boolean applications."

You still don't get it Waysider? It's CIRCULAR thinking!!!

[brideofjc]

Come on, really though, do you actually want to learn this?

Most grads only ever thought of applying "all without exception" and "all without distinction" to their KJVs, but the ultimate application is in written PFAL when it occurs in the text placed between KJV verses.

The same is true for "Jesus Christ" and "Christ Jesus" and "Jesus" and "Christ" and "The Lord Jesus Christ" etc. All those phrases have different meanings as Dr taught us. This is useful to know for our KJV reading, but ESPECIALLY USEFUL for the written PFAL passages placed between KJV verses.

OOOOHHHHHH! The Veepster's PRIVATE INTERPRETATION!

Nearly every word in any dictionary has multiple definitions.

Add to that the not-so-common dialects like I mentioned above and each word can have a wide range of meaning.

No, I'll decline your invitation to speak the more common dialects. Among grads I encourage growing up into PFAL English, an admittedly uncommon language, but a far more powerful one. It's a necessary one if you want to read PFAL with the understanding the author intended.

If you want to read "One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest" and want to get the author intended meaning, you'll have to get to know what KEN KESEY's definition of the word "combine" is and a few other Kesey-isms, or it's deeper meaning will fly over YOUR nest.

***

PS - The idea of PFAL English is tied to Mark 16's "new tongues" for the Appearing Administration as opposed to old SIT of the Grace Administration. Reference I Cor 13 where tongues cease... more developing as Drudge would say....

Just exactly HOW does your wife stand it????

Edited April 1, 2008 by brideofjc

[Ham]

If you want to read "One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest" and want to get the author intended meaning, you'll have to get to know what KEN KESEY's definition of the word "combine" is and a few other Kesey-isms, or it's deeper meaning will fly over YOUR nest.

You do realize Kesey wrote a significant portion of that book under the influence of Peyote, didn't you?

I wonder what the vicster was smoking..

[cman]

So what the difference between Light and Dark, Mike?

Especially with forgiveness as the main reason to know,

along with death, which no one can escape.

What is in the Dark that's not in the Light?

Is it the same things?

[T-Bone]

Interesting point discussed in these posts:

...Mind you,

the double-bind is that vpw was WRONG in his explanation.

We know that because he gives the OPPOSITE explanation in a different book.

If one were to actually think that vpw's books are God-breathed, one would be in a terrible bind here,

since vpw claims God-breathed works are inerrant, are free of error,

and there is a mathematical contradiction between two of his books.

This means it is impossible for both statements to be correct-since they are mutually exclusive...

===

...In short,

this post managed to misrepresent what the Bible said,

while misrepresenting what vpw said AT THE SAME TIME.

Quite a remarkable accomplishment....

What the Hey post # 1043

…I am not aware of anyplace where VPW ever claimed this. Moreover, VPW claimed, "Not everything VPW necessarilly writes is God-breathed." (And I am just quoting that from memory ... actually from what another poster here brought to light a while back and not the written form of PFAL verbatim. I long lost the written PFAL, so my recollection of the written form of PFAL could be hazy.)

The only claim VPW ever made is that the bible itself - is what is actually God-Breathed. "ALL scripture is "God-Breathed". In the film class VPW talkes and discusses the word: "ALL" long before he talkes about and discusss what is: "God-Breathed." That is: "ALL SCRIPTURE - WITHOUT EXCEPTION, is God-breathed."

1st. We learned how to rightly divide the Word of God by "the will of man" -- not by "revelation". For example, VPW stated in PFAL: You are sitting and learning this information by the will of man. For example: YOU willed to be in this class on Power For Abundant Living."

What often comes to us by the "will of man" - even the truth of the Word of God at times for example, will not always necessarily be "God-breathed", however the Word of God itself will be God-breathed - provided the individual had spoken it verbatum.

You know, vp did claim his stuff was God-breathed. PFAL, Page 83, Chapter Six That Man May Be Perfect:

"…The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology. 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…." It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille's writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, "Search the scriptures…" because all Scripture is God-breathed. 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…"

End of excerpt

There it sits…like a duck…Not all [without exception/with or without distinction ] that vp wrote will necessarily be [or not to be ] God-breathed….that is the challenge before us, class. Can you rightly divide Wierwille? Johnny Jump-Up over here says "I think what Wierwille said on this verse is definitely God-breathed" and Henry Baloko over there says "Nope! That's not God-breathed what Wierwille said there – but what he said about the law of believing – now, I think that's God-breathed!"….Dah, dah, dah…what do you have – but a bunch of private interpretation. Wierwille's stuff is either all [without exception/with or without distinction/inside job or an outside job/within you or without you ] God-breathed or none of it is…Well, that about wraps up this session. Your assignment for tonight is to read the first couple of chapters of the Blue Book VP Tells Me So.

Edited April 1, 2008 by T-Bone

[Mike]

You do realize Kesey wrote a significant portion of that book under the influence of Peyote, didn't you?

I wonder what the vicster was smoking..

Actually Kesey was doing clinical grade acid administered to him by the CIA in an insane asylum. He was a paid volunteer for the acid experiments and worked the midnight shift at the asylum. In those days acid was legal. This was 1960 or so. It was made illegal in 1966.

[Ham]

You might want to read page 14 and 15 of Garage Sale..

Kesey's "encounter" with Lou Costello is at the least hilarious..

[jen-o]

dear mike,

let me try to explain this as simply as possible...

one of the synonyms for the word "exception" is difference...

one of the synonyms for the word "distinction" is difference...

(check out a thesaurus, roget's will do)

therefore, all without exception (difference) = all without distinction (difference)

let me give you an example:

if i want to talk about all the rosebushes on the planet, i could refer to them as all rosebushes without exception OR all rosebushes without distinction...

and i could say:

all rosebushes without exception are plants...

OR

all rosebushes without distinction are plants...

however, if i want to differentiate between rosebushes and point out the differences among them...

then i might say:

all wild rosebushes have thorns...

now i have made a distinction...

all rosebushes WITH this particular DISTINCTION (i.e. the quality of being wild, and NOT cultivated) have thorns...

all rosebushes do not have thorns, but all wild rosebushes do...

this is all with distinction...

vpw misspoke when he said "all without distinction"... what he meant to say was "all WITH distinction" (which was what he was describing - all people within a certain category as differentiated from all people everywhere)...

now, i don't have a problem with people misspeaking... i don't think it's a big deal (we all do it at some time or another)...

what i do find ODD is that no one bothered to correct his mistake and this error...

why was this error not caught during the editing process?!?

did no one recognize it? (hard to believe)

OR

were people afraid to speak up and say something about it to vpw?

OR

did people have the attitude that whatever came out of vpw's mouth was "inspired by God"?

this error was captured on film, and no one bothered to correct it...

in fact, when i took the pfal class in 1981, i questioned the "twig leader" about it... and a couple of sessions later (after thinking about it, i guess), she made a statement to the "class" that vpw meant "all WITH distinction"...

i'm wondering how many other "class coordinators" bothered to correct this misstatement...

probably not many...

anyway, about that venn diagram...

the set of all items (without exception) and the set of all items (without distinction) contain the exact same items...

so you would have to draw 2 circles of the exact same size, and place one on top of the other...

shalom,

jen-o

[Mike]

jen-o

You wrote: "the set of all items (without exception) and the set of all items (without distinction) contain the exact same items..."

That may be the case IF we decided to agree on terms beforehand where "distinction" and "exception" will be defined as you set out.

But I may refrain, as I write MY thesis, to NOT agree with your usage of terms. Within MY thesis, I will start out by defining terms the way the way I will be using them.

Thomas Kuhn did this in 1962, in a book titled “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” He needed a word to describe an idea he had. He turned to an abandoned word, that had been out of use for many decades or more, and redefined it HIS way. It was the word “paradigm.”

In 1968 I took a college class on the History of Science. The professor was a student of Thomas Kuhn and based the entire course on Kuhn's one book. She told us that someday it would be a famous book. We went on a field trip to see him at Princeton and I got to talk to him along with just a very small handful of classmates who made the trip. He told us of how he coined the term “paradigm.”

Not long ago Time Magazine called “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” one of the most influential books of the Twentieth Century, and cited it as the originator of “paradigm.”

The reason you heard of that word is because that book became super famous. If it hadn’t become famous at all, Kuhn’s coinage FOR HIS BOOK would still have been valid. Authors do it all the time. If you want to understand PFAL you must become meek and adopt the author’s nomenclature. Q.E.D.

***

I did an entire thread here titled “Why Does a Mirror Reverse Left and Right?” to demonstrate the relativity of definitions. In this case it was the definition of the word “reverse.”

Check it out: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...=mirror+reverse

I suspect the ASCII art used in that thread to illustrate the riddle’s solution is all distorted due to numerous software changes in GreaseSpot since the thread was first posted. However it should still give your mind an exercise on the idea of dictionary definitions like it’s never had before.

Edited April 1, 2008 by Mike

[What The Hey]

First off I want to say I have a confession to make, especially to WW. My earlier all with distinction post (post# 1011) was a deliberate and intentional error on my part to find out how many people here still care to read critically - not necessarily what I write, but what is in the "written text" of PFAL. I wasn't even sure if I was even going to get anyone's attention over that error, this: "all with distinction" error, but thankfully we have a critic here who cares to read (well, at least to some extent) exactly what is written --- and here is what I mean by: "to some extent", WW.

WW pointed out the error I deliberately made in post# 1011, but he failed to point out the same error that appears earlier in post# 1006. Here is that post again with that same error highlighted in color - just so we don't miss it this time.

Know it all -- recite it all -- practice it all. Now here comes the "all" important question: Would that be all without exception, or all with distinction? If one can answer the "all" question, it will "all" lead to a better understanding of the heart of the matter.

Here's the problem as I see it folks. My first post, post #1006 making the remark: "all with distinction" was merely an oversight on my part. Yet WW does not speak up and correct the error that appears in the first post - about that apparent oversight. He only speaks up and corrects the error when I bring "PFAL" into the picture - in post# 1011. So what's the difference in the error - since we are apparenty discussing the subject if there is a difference in some words or not? There is absolutely none there. The only difference is this: Post# 1006 is not a threat to his "theological position", yet post# 1011 with PFAL in it is.

The reason why PFAL is still very threatening to our "theological position" is because all of us want to be correct in "our doctrine", don't we? We don't want to admit we could be "theologically incorrect" - especially not to ourselves, and certainly not to anybody else! (Somehow we all have this kind of mindset going on thinking, that is: This "God-breathed" doctrine is all mine and it completely belongs to me -- and by god I'm not going to let anybody touch it or tamper with it!!!)

Here it is - "All" a bit more clearly, in the written form from the PFAL syllabus:

All scripture (nothing less)

All without exception (exclusion, omission, debarment)

All without distinction (discriminiation)

John 3:16,17; 12:32. Romans 5:12. II Corinthians 5:14,15 Ephesians 4:6,

Titus 2:11. Hebrews 2:9. 1 John 1:9; 2:2.

The above scriptures are but a few examples in the Word of God where the Word of God is refering to: All without distinction (discriminiation), but these particular scriptures are not referring to: All without exception (exclusion, omission, debarment).

Going back to that first post, post# 1006 - specifically: "All" is a very important question. If we can answer the "all" question, it will "all" lead to a better understanding of the heart of the matter. I believe that statement to be more emphatic and even more important now than when I first posted the remark, because "all" certainly goes further than the biblical sense/usage I brought up. Need proof of this? We all (without exception) missed it in post# 1006, but not in post# 1011.

However my attempt at defining "all" - that is. all with distinction, without going back and checking first to see how it was being used in PFAL accurately, may have thrown some people more off track than what they initially were. "All without distinction" is equivalent to and equals "All without discrimination." That is how "All without distinction" (discrimination) is used in PFAL.

[jen-o]

That may be the case IF we decided to agree on terms beforehand where "distinction" and "exception" will be defined as you set out.

But I may refrain, as I write MY thesis, to NOT agree with your usage of terms.

i'm using the terms the way the thesaurus uses them...

if you want to invent your own "usages" for words (and not use words the way the rest of the english-speaking people use them), then be my guest!

i will say, though, that you are gonna have a hard time communicating with people if you are using words differently than the rest of the population...

[WordWolf]

First off I want to say I have a confession to make, especially to WW. My earlier all with distinction post (post# 1011) was a deliberate and intentional error on my part to find out how many people here still care to read critically - not necessarily what I write, but what is in the "written text" of PFAL. I wasn't even sure if I was even going to get anyone's attention over that error, this: "all with distinction" error, but thankfully we have a critic here who cares to read (well, at least to some extent) exactly what is written --- and here is what I mean by: "to some extent", WW.

WW pointed out the error I deliberately made in post# 1011, but he failed to point out the same error that appears earlier in post# 1006. Here is that post again with that same error highlighted in color - just so we don't miss it this time.

Know it all -- recite it all -- practice it all. Now here comes the "all" important question: Would that be all without exception, or all with distinction? If one can answer the "all" question, it will "all" lead to a better understanding of the heart of the matter.

Here's the problem as I see it folks. My first post, post #1006 making the remark: "all with distinction" was merely an oversight on my part. Yet WW does not speak up and correct the error that appears in the first post - about that apparent oversight. He only speaks up and corrects the error when I bring "PFAL" into the picture - in post# 1011. So what's the difference in the error - since we are apparenty discussing the subject if there is a difference in some words or not? There is absolutely none there. The only difference is this: Post# 1006 is not a threat to his "theological position", yet post# 1011 with PFAL in it is.

A) We can't have WTH actually admitting to a mistake, can we?

It has to have been an INTENTIONAL error....

B) I saw it in the other post.

However, if I responded to every single instance of something wrong, WTH would be furious and insist

I was picking on him. Instead, I use most of my time more productively. (I let it slide, and that's no

exagerration and no lie. I'm sure WTH will claim I didn't see the first one, but if so, he will be mistaken.)

When he decided to make a significantly-lengthed post on it-especially one that included misinformation-

I made a note to respond to it as soon as was convenient. (I didn't drop everything and respond.)

So, all of WTH's speculation as to why I responded to a post several paragraphs long, when I left

alone one that was 2 sentences long, was all incorrect.

If he'd used Occam's Razor (and used it CORRECTLY), his first guess would probably have been the

correct one.

Sadly, he's still trying to make the case that pfal was correct in using a word incorrectly, and willing

to torture the English language and make elaborate, empty, circumlocuitous posts to do so.

He's certainly free to do so. He's also free to think he's actually fooling someone. And to think

he'll get some sort of "atta boy" for doing so. Technically, he'll get the last, but from other posters

who do the same, not from the only one whose opinion truly counts.//

[Neo]

A) We can't have WTH actually admitting to a mistake, can we?

It has to have been an INTENTIONAL error....

B) I saw it in the other post.

However, if I responded to every single instance of something wrong, WTH would be furious and insist

I was picking on him. Instead, I use most of my time more productively. (I let it slide, and that's no

exagerration and no lie. I'm sure WTH will claim I didn't see the first one, but if so, he will be mistaken.)

When he decided to make a significantly-lengthed post on it-especially one that included misinformation-

I made a note to respond to it as soon as was convenient. (I didn't drop everything and respond.)

So, all of WTH's speculation as to why I responded to a post several paragraphs long, when I left

alone one that was 2 sentences long, was all incorrect.

If he'd used Occam's Razor (and used it CORRECTLY), his first guess would probably have been the

correct one.

Sadly, he's still trying to make the case that pfal was correct in using a word incorrectly, and willing

to torture the English language and make elaborate, empty, circumlocuitous posts to do so.

He's certainly free to do so. He's also free to think he's actually fooling someone. And to think

he'll get some sort of "atta boy" for doing so. Technically, he'll get the last, but from other posters

who do the same, not from the only one whose opinion truly counts.//

This may help!

Remember what Dr. said?

"Do you know why you have a problem forgiving? It is because you have forgotten what God has forgiven you for!!!"

In TNDC, pg. 172, The Church Today Dr writes;

Division always frustrates Christian efforts. May God deliver us as the Church from being contentious and difficult, from maligning our brethren, from bickering and quarrelsomeness, from dividing the Body of Christ by our lack of enlightenment. There is too much division outside the Church; our solidarity is imperative to give us strength to move forward in spite of the opposition. May the Father in heaven, for the sake of the only-begotten Son, bless us with such an abundance that we may cease to be a part of the problem and become a part of the answer. May we as members of Christ’s Body become so filled with love that we may be teachable and have our hearts opened to His Holy Word. And may we receive of Him and carry the blessing to all we meet, that they may see us and know we are His.

I sure love ALL of you, for as God said in

HIS word "FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD, THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGTTON SON!"

All my Love,

Neo

[T-Bone]

This may help!

Remember what Dr. said?

"Do you know why you have a problem forgiving? It is because you have forgotten what God has forgiven you for!!!"

In TNDC, pg. 172, The Church Today Dr writes;

Division always frustrates Christian efforts. May God deliver us as the Church from being contentious and difficult, from maligning our brethren, from bickering and quarrelsomeness, from dividing the Body of Christ by our lack of enlightenment. There is too much division outside the Church; our solidarity is imperative to give us strength to move forward in spite of the opposition. May the Father in heaven, for the sake of the only-begotten Son, bless us with such an abundance that we may cease to be a part of the problem and become a part of the answer. May we as members of Christ's Body become so filled with love that we may be teachable and have our hearts opened to His Holy Word. And may we receive of Him and carry the blessing to all we meet, that they may see us and know we are His...

Sorry, I don't think that helps – cuz vp's idea of enlightenment was only what he said about the Bible. If you didn't believe what vp said about the Bible then you were causing division! vp represented his own doctrines as being on par with Scripture! That's what I showed in post # 1057:

You know, vp did claim his stuff was God-breathed. PFAL, Page 83, Chapter Six That Man May Be Perfect:

"…The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology. 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…." It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille's writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, "Search the scriptures…" because all Scripture is God-breathed. 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…"

End of excerpt...

quote]

Edited April 1, 2008 by T-Bone

[Ham]

Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed

Wouldn't that be a round about way of saying "some" or even "the vast majoity" is indeed "God-breathed"?

not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts

Interesting he puts his product on the same "social status" of Calvin, Wesley, Grahm, Luther, Roberts..

the idea that a man by his own efforts can study and plagiarize his way to being an authentic "manogawd" is ludicrous to begin with..

[T-Bone]

Ham - the way it hits me is that vp actually elevates his stuff above Calvin, Luther, etc. He suggests his own stuff as being partly God-breathed [not specifying which parts]....but for everyone else he uses a negative: NOT Calvin, NOR Luther, etc.

[Mike]

God was behind that claim, energizing it.

If it was merely vp making that claim, we here at GreaseSpot and many other places would not be discussing THOUSANDS OF TIMES what a back-woods preacher said in Dayton Ohio in late 1967 in front of a 16 mm movie camera.

PFAL page 83 was NOT one of those items tucked away in a corner. There WERE some of those, but THIS one on page 83 was taken straight from the film class almost word for word. EVERYONE heard that statement from PFAL page 83, EVERY TIME they took the class. It was right out in front of us all the time. Anyone who thinks it's obscure in any way should look forward to a lot more surprises in the written forms of PFAL.

I said the earth shook when he walked because God was walking with him. And here it still shakes!

***

This PFAL page 83 claim is just one of 22 such similar claims I documented in Post #312 on this thread: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...9131&st=300

I have a collection of about 90 such claims.

Funny thing, when I first started posting many claimed that I was going against Dr's own teachings by ascribing God-breathed status to the collaterals. They insisted that I was speaking contrary to Dr's teaching and laughed when I said I had 90 such statements. Finding even ONE such statement, therefore, is an indictment on the thoroughness with which those mocking posters used in their own PFAL study.

Here are two more for good measure: TNDC pages 34 and 116.

Edited April 1, 2008 by Mike

[doojable]

I said the earth shook ... And here it still shakes!

Remember to get under a door jamb.

~sorry, I couldn't resist~

[waysider]

Mike

Have you ever sat down with a trained professional and discussed the possibility that you are suffering from a "delusional disorder"?

I'm asking that question in all earnest.

There is no malice intended.

[Mike]

Is this a flashback I'm having?????

Didn't we already try this route?

[jen-o]

I said the earth shook when he walked

mike,

why do you elevate another human being (a mere mortal man) in this way?

it borders on idolatry...

Edited April 1, 2008 by jen-o

[Mike]

I don't elevate him.

I'm elevating the revelation God gave to him.

Edited April 1, 2008 by Mike

[cman]

Relying on the things that are seen is certainly temporal.

What did VP Not see?

The days of a book being my guide are over.

Or anyone's idea of what a book or books say.