VPW and the Snowstorm - What do you believe?

[Raf]

VPW was a fraud. A predator who used and twisted scripture to satisfy his own ends.

THAT's the moonwalking bear.

This whole argument is counting basketball passes.

[Mike]

You know, I've always been perturbed with VPW's contention that we can follow his rules and get back to "the God-breathed Word". Knowing a tiny bit about information theory, I know that once information is lost, it's lost. And no amount of fiddling will bring it back. He give us no reasoned argument why his method should be considered reliable, which I find somewhat incredible given his non-stop rants about upholding "the accuracy of God's Word".

WOW! I agree COMPLETELY with this, and have said so many times here.

The latest is above where I mentioned guessing: "...if it's not by revelation then that's all there is, guesses, educated guesses at best, but then you have to guess which "educated" guess is the best educated and therefore correct."

The reason the loss of the originals is catastrophic is because they're UNRECOVERABLE!

Here's another way I've said it: If the devil scrambled up the original message, there's no way sense knowledge scholars can compete with that and restore it....

...UNLESS GOD ALMIGHTY, THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR, INTERVENES.......

[George Aar]

WOW! I agree COMPLETELY with this, and have said so many times here.

The latest is above where I mentioned guessing: "...if it's not by revelation then that's all there is, guesses, educated guesses at best, but then you have to guess which "educated" guess is the best educated and therefore correct."

The reason the loss of the originals is catastrophic is because they're UNRECOVERABLE!

Here's another way I've said it: If the devil scrambled up the original message, there's no way sense knowledge scholars can compete with that and restore it....

...UNLESS GOD ALMIGHTY, THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR, INTERVENES.......

So, if I'm understanding correctly, Almighty GOD, who created the entire universe and everything therein, who knows every being in that universe intimately, down to keeping a running tally of the amount of their operable hair follicles, can't quite seem to figure out how to push "print" on his cosmic Xerox machine. NO! It's up to us to play "magic decoder ring" and make all sorts of profound guesses and surmisings to determine what His will REALLY is.

It's beyond absurd. Ludicrous, laughable, nonsensical, I dunno, words fail me when it comes to the yawning gap between religious dogma and basic, barnyard variety, common sense.

I guess ultimately, none of us is doing anything really meaningful (when viewed from a perspective of "eternity"), but do you really wanta spend your few years on earth totally absorbed in superstitious nonsense? Yer choice I guess...

[Raf]

CAPITALIZATION IS NO GUARANTEE FOR TRUTH.

Three guests check into a hotel. The clerk says the bill is $30 so each pays $10. Later the clerk realizes the bill should only be $25. To rectify he gives the bellhop five dollars to return to the guests. On the way back to the room the bellhop realizes that he cannot divide the money evenly. As they didn’t know the total of the revised bill, he decides to give each guest a dollar and keep two for himself.

Now that the guests have been given a dollar back, each has paid $9. 3 x 9 = 27 and the bellhop has $2.

2 + 27 = 29. If the guests originally handed over $30, what happened to the remaining dollar?

The mastery that has taken place here is not a mastery of PFAL or the Bible. It's a mastery of dodging, distracting, etc.

Whether you agree with the majority of PFAL or not, it is not "perfect." It is the flawed work of a (deeply) flawed man. That's plain and obvious for all to see, as long as they're not distracted by theories and questions that are designed with one purpose in mind: to lead you away from truths that would otherwise be obvious [that PFAL is the imperfect work of predatory charlatan]. Argue about VPW's character, argue about individual flaws in the person or the product, argue about all you want to argue about, and you will spend all your time counting basketball passes and missing the moonwalking bear [PFAL was, at best, the candy in "hey little boy, do you want some candy?"]

[Mike]

So, if I'm understanding correctly, Almighty GOD, who created the entire universe and everything therein, who knows every being in that universe intimately, down to keeping a running tally of the amount of their operable hair follicles, can't quite seem to figure out how to push "print" on his cosmic Xerox machine. NO! It's up to us to play "magic decoder ring" and make all sorts of profound guesses and surmisings to determine what His will REALLY is.

It's beyond absurd. Ludicrous, laughable, nonsensical, I dunno, words fail me when it comes to the yawning gap between religious dogma and basic, barnyard variety, common sense.

I guess ultimately, none of us is doing anything really meaningful (when viewed from a perspective of "eternity"), but do you really wanta spend your few years on earth totally absorbed in superstitious nonsense? Yer choice I guess...

George, what you are yearning for is the original setup, The Garden and/or the final return to same. The reason things are so convoluted right now is because there's a cosmic war to blame. But relax, it's only temporary.

[George Aar]

George, what you are yearning for is the original setup, The Garden and/or the final return to same. The reason things are so convoluted right now is because there's a cosmic war to blame. But relax, it's only temporary.

It appears that you're indulging in a bit of projection again. I'm not yearning for much of anything right now, certainly not some sort of explanation for why a disparate collection of old fables doesn't "fit like a hand in a glove". I find religious arguments to be among the most absurd of mankind's endeavors, and yours especially so. Sorry...

[oldiesman]

If what you say is right then I think we are all in deep dooo dooooooo.

But I continue to believe that the sins of the moonwalking bear didn't negate the nourishment in the porridge.

[potato]

my mind boggles a bit at the idea that it took so long for a girl like Mary to come along so the messiah could be born, then that boy had to be pure enough to take on his job... just imagine what a disaster it would have been if he'd decided to become a drunkard and rapist like vpw... but god could somehow settle the responsibility of preserving his "word" on a man like vpw... and now apparently not just the preservation of his "word" since it was catestrophically lost, but the responsibility for receiving what is now actually new revelation that would get us back to the "original"... and vpw being constantly out of fellowship while drinking, bullying, preying on innocent girls and living a lavish lifestyle didn't at all stand in his way of carrying out this awesome responsibility.

[Mike]

... and vpw being constantly out of fellowship...

I'd say this is a emotionally wild extrapolation, not at all based on having experience working with the man, and totally ignoring the good he did for me and thousands of others.

******************************************************

You know, I've always been perturbed with VPW's contention that we can follow his rules and get back to "the God-breathed Word". Knowing a tiny bit about information theory, I know that once information is lost, it's lost. And no amount of fiddling will bring it back. He give us no reasoned argument why his method should be considered reliable, which I find somewhat incredible given his non-stop rants about upholding "the accuracy of God's Word".

Jim,

I can’t overemphasize what a huge HOME RUN you’ve hit with this post.

This perturbed me long ago, way in the back of my mind. One time in the 80’s the twig I was in did a word study together. It was maddening how may of us came to differing conclusions. It brought my deep hunch to the surface, but it wasn’t respolved until the events in 1998 happened that I’ve described here.

Information theory is the elegant mathematical way of proving what you just said: “I know that once information is lost, it's lost. And no amount of fiddling will bring it back.”

No amount of biblical research, using all the methods we were taught, will ever put Humpty Dumpty back together again. It’s the same as making an .mp3 file from a full .wav file. Information is lost and it’s lost forever.

***

I’m convinced that THIS same perturbance is what VPW was so frustrated over when he was ready to throw in the towel in 1942.

There’s something interesting just before the well know phrase from Elena Whiteside’s book: “He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others.”

In addition to that set of words, in the early 70’s there was another set that we often repeated, but that later fell from use and became less and less known. WordWolf documented this on Post #51 of this thread: “I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on.”

The perturbance that brought VPW to the point of being ready to quit the ministry was that he couldn’t get “real genuine answers” and everything he researched he’d later “have to back up on.”

I’m convinced that, like you, Jim, the original understanding of the ancient manuscripts was utterly lost and catastrophically irrecoverable. Then God showed him His solution, revelation. Not just pure revelation, but revelation WHILE HE WORKED THE PRINCIPLES.

This point of senses research working ALONG WITH revelation is emphasized well in the “Light Began to Dawn” we all earlier looked at here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=1871

In that transcript VPW documents often that there was work involved. He had to do the research using the principles and tools, and then God would lend His hand where it was needed. This is something he often taught elsewhere.

I’m convinced that there are 4 reasons VPW taught us those research principles and tools, and it was NOT so that we could “get back” to the originals on our own 5 senses steam. That information, as Jim well put was “lost. And no amount of fiddling will bring it back.” No amount of 5 senses fiddling, that is. The Author could assist, though, and then it’s possible.

Here are the 4 reasons VPW taught us those research principles and tools:

1. To document the way scholars work to arrive at the multiplicity of answers they come up with, and then later have to “back up on.”

2. To document how he and God worked on getting back to the originals, that is, what part VPW had to do in the process. God had to guide him.

3. To give us a way we could REtrace or REsearch his work. Remember how he used to emphasize that Research was not to come up with something new, but to “see again” what god showd him?

4. To give us a method whereby we could work on fully absorbing the PFAL texts, where there wasn’t the catastrophic problem of loss of the originals, just befuddled heads that need clearing.

Using the research principles and tools on PFAL is new and novel, and it’s by this means I have seen more in the writings than I ever saw before, or anyone else has ever seen without using these research principles and tools.

This is what I meant in Post #135 to Twinky when I said: “Like I said, I did study before similar to or more than the Corps, yet I was stunned when I returned to try it again. My credentials are that I have engaged in deeper the study and can hold my own quite well with anyone who posts here, as well as in many e-mails and phone conversations I’ve had with many of the research luminaries of the ministry past. I simply employ advanced techniques others have only used on the ancient scriptures."

***

I’ve said all these things before, multiple times, and in different ways. Last night I really thought we’d finished seeing this thread’s lifetime. I thought I’d be all well (cough, cough) today and back to work and no more reminiscing the Mike Wars.

So how DO we end this? Call a cease fire, or someone put forth the definitive argument?

[Mark Clarke]

Mike, you quoted VP out of context! You referred to where he said "there are no original texts in existence today," but glossed over where he said, "At best, we have copies of the originals" (note - "copies of the originals" not "mis-copies of WHATEVER.") If we have copies of copies of the originals, then the Word communicated by the originals is only slightly changed, not lost, even though the original physical documents may be gone.

Furthermore, he never said that the Scriptures were so corrupted that the only way we can know the Word was by the specially anointed insight God gave him. Had he ever said such a thing, I am confident that far fewer people would have followed him. WordWolf's quotation from the orange book shows that VP claimed we could study the Bible and use the same principles he did to arrive at the truth as it was originally God-breathed. We trusted him because we thought he was teaching us what the Greek and Hebrew said. Few of us knew enough Greek and Hebrew to realize his errors.

As for your claim that the manuscripts are at "extreme variance with each other" I would refer you to any number of apologetics sources (which, by the way does NOT mean "apologizing for being a Christian" - he couldn't even get his English definitions straight!). Just for starters, in his book Misquoting Truth,

Timothy Paul Jones responds to the claim that there are as many as 400,000 differences between manuscripts, stating that those differences have very little significance for three reasons:

(1) First, the vast majority of the changes in the New Testament document are not even noticeable when the text is translated into other languages.

(2) What’s more, it’s almost always possible—through a discipline known as textual criticism—to compare manuscripts and to discover where and when changes were made.

(3) Perhaps most important, the copyists were more concerned with preserving the words of Scripture than with promoting their own theological agendas.

There is actually amazing agreement among the many manuscripts, considering their age and the number of them in extant. Craig L. Blomberg, in Jesus of Nazareth: How Historians Can Know Him and Why it Matters, states the following:

The vast majority of changes that were introduced involved variant spellings, the accidental omission or repetition of a single letter, the substitution of one word for a synonym, and the like.

This is why Jason David BeDuhn, in Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament can say with confidence:

Modern biblical scholars have developed all sorts of strategies for compensating for all of these errors, and the Bible today is in better shape than it has ever been.

Far from being "catastrophically lost," the New Testament has been amazingly preserved down through the years. And besides, if the Scriptures were that corrupted, why would VP keep telling us to read the Word for ourselves and check out what he was saying? I honestly don't know where you got the idea that God's solution to the hopelessly lost Scriptures was to give VPW special revelation. VP himself never claimed such a thing. He always said not to take his word for it - "Just read it for yourself, keeds!" (The problem was that we read the Bible to try to corroborate what he said instead of reading it to see what it said for itself.)

As for the disagreement with Paul, it is not just MY stance to disregard Dispensationalism. It cannot be demonstrated from the Scriptures. Believe me, I've tried. It's not even a matter of selecting different manuscripts, translations, or interpreters. The plain English verses that were used to prove Dispensationalism were taken out of context and in some cases completely misquoted, all the while contradicting many clear verses that show that Paul preached the same Gospel as Jesus. Again, since this isn't the Doctrinal forum, I'll just point out that I have dealt with this in detail on my web site, if you are interested:

Dispensationalism

One Gospel

But as I said, the Dispensationalism issue is only one of many issues. There are others which even moderately competent Biblical scholars can see right through, but we were always warned not to listen to scholars because they were all full of head knowledge and didn't really believe God and His Word. We were told not to consider outside sources, lest we get tricked by the adversary. Most of us never even knew what the opposing viewpoints were on all the major doctrines, so we had nothing to compare VP's doctrine to, except for his filtered version of what they said.

One last thought. Why would God, after miraculously inspiring many different men to write the Scriptures, put our only means of understanding them in the hands of one man? Let alone a man whose lifestyle went completely against the things that he preached? Fortunately God had better sense than that.

[Oakspear]

If what you say is right then I think we are all in deep dooo dooooooo.

But I continue to believe that the sins of the moonwalking bear didn't negate the nourishment in the porridge.

...and I continue to believe that John Entwhistle (sp?) was one of the best rock bass players ever....but then again, no one's claimed that he wasn't.

Looks like a moon walking strawman

[potato]

I'd say this is a emotionally wild extrapolation, not at all based on having experience working with the man, and totally ignoring the good he did for me and thousands of others.

why assume I'm being emotional when I deduce he must have been constantly out of fellowship to live the lifestyle he did? what does the supposed "good" have to do with his state of fellowship? I've seen real @$$holes do seemingly nice things for people, but there were almost always strings attached. doesn't mean they were in fellowship at all when they were doing "good". and if the good you're talking about is writing all those books... well then. our definitions of good differ.

[Mark Clarke]

...and I continue to believe that John Entwhistle (sp?) was one of the best rock bass players ever....but then again, no one's claimed that he wasn't.

Looks like a moon walking strawman

Nor is anyone claiming that God spoke to John Entwhistle and told him, "I will teach you to play bass like it has not been played since the first century if you will in turn teach others."

If Mike wants to hold to his faith in VPW's writings more than the Bible, that's his choice. I'm glad he's not running a ministry.

[Raf]

I've seen real @$$holes do seemingly nice things for people, but there were almost always strings attached. doesn't mean they were in fellowship at all when they were doing "good".

As I've often said, Jeffrey Dahmer ate only a miniscule percentage of the people he met in his life. Why, then, do we insist on calling him a cannibalistic murderer?

[oldiesman]

...One last thought. Why would God, after miraculously inspiring many different men to write the Scriptures, put our only means of understanding them in the hands of one man? Let alone a man whose lifestyle went completely against the things that he preached? ...

I think that is kind of a strawman in itself.

The claim was that God would work with VP; NOT that God would work with VP ONLY. If God worked with other folks (which I certainly think he did) Vp doesn't disprove that by his words or experience; all he is claiming is his own experience and not disproving anyone elses claims.

I am weary of these claims that purport to show that vp and twi claimed they were the ONLY source of truth; I think that is a false premise designed to mislead and that never came from vp or twi. Besides, VP said "lots of the stuff I teach is not original" so how in the world can he think he's the ONLY source or means to understand the truth if lots of his stuff came from elsewhere? Just knowing that lots of the stuff came from other men disproves them being the ONLY source.

Most accurate, ok. ONLY means, no.

Let alone a man whose lifestyle went completely against the things that he preached?

...

I think that is irrelevant as to whether his teachings are truth or of benefit to the student of biblical research. I think the teachings stand or fall on their own merit. King Solomon (who did much worse evil than VP ever DREAMED of) sins didn't negate the truths in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon; obviously God wants truth communicated regardless of the sins of the communicator.

Edited January 9, 2009 by oldiesman

[Mike]

Mike, you quoted VP out of context! You referred to where he said "there are no original texts in existence today," but glossed over where he said, "At best, we have copies of the originals" (note - "copies of the originals" not "mis-copies of WHATEVER.") If we have copies of copies of the originals, then the Word communicated by the originals is only slightly changed, not lost, even though the original physical documents may be gone.

That's AT BEST we have copies of the originals. And they're mixed in with the not-so-best.

Gosh this is sounding more and more like a doctrinal thread. We're going to have to give it up soon.

Furthermore, he never said that the Scriptures were so corrupted that the only way we can know the Word was by the specially anointed insight God gave him. Had he ever said such a thing, I am confident that far fewer people would have followed him.

I agree with your "few followers" theory here. That's why he had to imply and spread the message out for those who would later want to find it. I'd have not followed him if he sledgehammered his way into this subject. I had to ponder it all for decades before being ready to break with tradition.

WordWolf's quotation from the orange book shows that VP claimed we could study the Bible and use the same principles he did to arrive at the truth as it was originally Gd-breathed. We trusted him because we thought he was teaching us what the Greek and Hebrew said. Few of us knew enough Greek and Hebrew to realize his errors.

We still don't know enough to see the "experts'" errors.

As for your claim that the manuscripts are at "extreme variance with each other" I would refer you to any number of apologetics sources (which, by the way does NOT mean "apologizing for being a Christian" - he couldn't even get his English definitions straight!). Just for starters, in his book Misquoting Truth,

Timothy Paul Jones responds to the claim that there are as many as 400,000 differences between manuscripts, stating that those differences have very little significance for three reasons....

I'm reminded of "if you change one word you no longer have the Word..."

While your idea of slight variations not distorting the message may hold for SOME subjects, those subjects that matter the most MAY be catastrophically altered. If I were the adversary that's PRECISELY what I'd do: slightly alter many passages and so give the appearance of recover ability, and BIGTIME altering the crucial passages, even maybe deleting them, or inserting camouflaging phrases like we know happened with some trinity verses.

PLUS, the 400,000 differences between manuscripts should be more properly labeled "KNOWN differences between manuscripts." What about the UNknown differences? Silence?

I've been through all these arguments many times, even here on the board. I find them boring and going nowhere. I find the collateral study, with the advanced techniques I mentioned, very refreshing.

[What The Hey]

Now, if Mike has a copy of the video or audio class (one & the same) or an dependable transcript, I would tend to believe him, but would feel better if an additional witness could verify what he's saying. I've not found Mike to be a liar, but he does tend to quote what backs up his position while ignoring the rest.

He does, so you can believe him - or do you need more witnesses?

[Mike]

One last thought. Why would God, after miraculously inspiring many different men to write the Scriptures, put our only means of understanding them in the hands of one man? Let alone a man whose lifestyle went completely against the things that he preached? Fortunately God had better sense than that.

Here's one answer: to get rid of all the theologians... at least for a little while.

[Oakspear]

He does, so you can believe him - or do you need more witnesses?

He does what? Quote only what he feels backs up his position or has another witness?

Mike is perfectly capable of responding to anything I say to or about him. Despite our opposing viewpoints we get along pretty well. And he owes me a Leinenkugel.

[Oakspear]

(Mark Clarke @ Jan 9 2009, 03:12 PM)

...One last thought. Why would God, after miraculously inspiring many different men to write the Scriptures, put our only means of understanding them in the hands of one man? Let alone a man whose lifestyle went completely against the things that he preached? ...

I think that is kind of a strawman in itself.

No, a strawman argument is when you present an position that is different and usually weaker than your opponenent's actual argument as his actual argument.

You have a point about Mark's point...but it's not a strawman.

Carry on...

[Mike]

I can imagine VERY SIMILAR gut wrenching debate and hair pulling arguments among the relatives and friends of Uriah, among the relatives and friends of Solomon's victim's, and among the relatives and friends of Saul of Tarsus' victims.

It gives God glory to proclaim that He can do many might things with and for terrible sinners like us. We ALL have failed to love God first MANY times in our lives, we all are guilty of breaking the greatest commandment. Praise GOD for His goodness to us all!

[Raf]

Again the VPW as David claim.

And the basketball passes on. Pay no attention to the moonwalking bear!

[WhiteDove]

Mike,Jan 9 2009, 10:03 AM

That's wrong on 2 counts, either of which invalidates Mike's position.

Count 1. What vpw actually said....

The Orange Book, page-127-128 says

"In proceeding as a workman, there is basic information which must be kept in

mind, the first of which is that no translation or version of the Bible may

properly be called the Word of God.

The Bible from which I have been quoting is called the King James Version.

It is not the King James Translation. If I had a King James translation in my

hands, I would have a Bible that is worth a great deal of money as a collector's

item. Once a translation has been made from an original text, like the Stephens

Text from which the King James was translated, the first copy is called a

translation. When scholars begin to rework the translation in any way, it becomes

a version.

Now, I said that no translation, let alone a version, may properly be called the

Word of God. As far as anybody knows, there are no original texts in existence

today. The oldest dated Biblical manuscript is from 464 AD and written in

Aramaic in Estrangelo script. There are older Aramaic manuscripts written in the

Estrangelo script which predate 464 AD, but these are not Biblical texts.

What students or scholars refer to as 'originals' really date from 464 AD and

later. These manuscripts are not originals--the originals are those which holy

men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. At best, we have copies

of the originals. When I refer to the Word of God, I do not mean a copy or a

translation or a version; I mean that Word of God which was originally given by

revelation to holy men.

Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to

the fifth century AD,

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 if 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'. "

Read it for yourself. Did vpw claim the Scriptures were "catastrophically lost"?

Did he claim the 4th century manuscripts were "at extreme variance with each other"?

Did he claim the critical texts are "at variance with each other"?

Did he say "The originals are catastropically LOST"?

Did he say that what's in the originals is "ANYBODY'S GUESS"?

HARDLY.

He said he was CONFIDENT WE (not "HE", "WE") can get back to the originals by careful study of the current translation OR VERSION.

1) Compare one word with another word

2) Compare one verse with another verse

3) Study the context of all the verses

4) The results can contain no contradictions-God cannot contradict Himself.

5) Resolve errors by finding where they originate- the translation or in the understanding of the student (or both)

What happens when WE (not "HE", "WE") diligently apply these principles?

"WE GET BACK TO THAT ORIGINAL, GOD-BREATHED WORD".

According to vpw.

According to Mike, that's a futile effort- the current English versions are useless, and getting back to that original,

God-Breathed Word is "ANYBODY'S GUESS".

Mike's premise runs contrary to the clear statements of vpw.

================

B) It's wrong on a SECOND count because Mike hobbles his study by limiting himself to the limitations of vpw. Where vpw was notably weak,

Mike will forever be notably weak, and can never exceed vpw's skils.

vpw himself claimed the oldest texts were Aramaic. This is especially peculiar, since the more evidence is uncovered, the more this

is shown to contradict all the archeology, all the discovered texts, manuscripts, and so on.

vpw parroted George Lamsa on the subject.

Lamsa is the one who pushed the "Aramaic first" position.

This was advantageous to Lamsa, as he put forth he was THE

Aramaic expert,

which would make himself THE Bible expert.

For Lamsa, I think this was a deliberate attempt to inflate

his own importance.

vpw was NEVER a good researcher. His "best work" was photocopies

of the work of others, and often the deeper things showed a lack

of understanding of what he was copying.

(That's why his definition of "word of knowledge" is INCORRECT,

despite being derived from Leonard's definition, which IS correct.)

So, when Lamsa made a convincing-sounding case for Aramaic,

vpw lifted Lamsa's claims entirely.

If vpw had done his own research, he would have seen that his

own claims of the earliest texts being from the FOURTH century

were off by at least 200 years,

as was known at least 20 years before he put this error in writing.

See,

in Bullinger's time, (a century ago),

such a claim would fly.

The last century, however, has seen many new manuscripts

come to light, and the dates of the earliest texts now can reach VERY

far back, compared to what was available before then.

So, I think it was LAZINESS and BAD RESEARCH.

His area of study was NOT Bible languages, Koine Greek, Hebrew.

His area of study was NOT Bible History-archeology, and so on.

Those require a lot of study and significant amounts of memorization.

He wasn't "hot" in those areas, either-as real students of them can easily point out.

Even the passing mention of "earliest texts" in the Orange Book fail to mention

documents found in the early 1950s-and the copyright is early 1970s.

I know they didn't have the internet, but he kept getting all those magazines

that kept going in the trash-and THEY would have mentioned that was NEWS.

His area of study was "Homiletics", which, IMHO, is the EASIEST/ "softest" option

to take in a Bible college.

As it is, a diligent student AT THE TIME VPW WAS STUDYING could know better than that.

Since then, the information is at the fingertips of anyone who can go to a decent library,

or search the internet.

I'm confident nearly any of you, with enough patience, (and many of you quickly) could find enough information just on the internet

to completely discredit Mike's claims here- Mike's claims of "extreme variance" of manuscripts, texts or both,

Mike's claim (vpw's claim) of only post 4th century being preserved.

As to Mike's claim that what the originals said are "a sense-knowledge guess",

Mike himself (as has been pointed out a number of times) rejects the word of vpw on that one.

vpw said WE could do it.

Did vpw really mean WE could do it, not "HE" could do it?

vpw said "WE" in that passage FIVE TIMES.

That's what vpw said A LOT. Is that what vpw meant?

Does anyone besides Mike think vpw could keep saying "WE" all the time and mean "ME" each time?

Does anyone besides Mike think vpw could keep saying "WE" all the time and mean "ME" each time?

Well it does seem to be a popular opinion here at least when someone documents a fact that doesn't fit with the mission or invalidates a claim. It's common to hear at that point, well what VP said and what was meant were two different things. I guess now that it does not fit with the mission here you want us to believe the opposite. By GreaseSpot standards yes when he said WE he must have meant ME, cause we all know what he said and what he meant or did were never the same. Or does that only apply when it works in your favor?

Edited January 9, 2009 by WhiteDove

[Mike]

Again the VPW as David claim.

And the basketball passes on. Pay no attention to the moonwalking bear!

Setting aside all the details, Raf,

I think I can speak for THOUSANDS of grads

and say that no matter what you all say,

WE WERE BLESSED by the sum and substance of VPW’s ministry,

WE CONTINUE TO BE BLESSED by it,

and none of you CAN’T talk us out of it!

[Raf]

I agree. As I said, Jeffrey Dahmer only ate a FEW of the people he met. Miniscule compared to the number of people he didn't eat. That makes him a non-murderer and non-cannibal FAR more times than he was a murderer and cannibal.