The Wierwille Legacy: Who Will Write The Book?

[chockfull]

I guess we have the idea floating around that since "truth is free" copyrights don't matter.  i.e. it all belongs to God anyway.

This is kind of a "hippy free love" approach to the scriptures.

I would say the problem with a hippy free love approach is boundaries.  Sure.  Love is free.  Everyone can share.  Except when it comes to these pesky human boundaries that people set up - you know, like marriage, virtue, one wife type of concept.   Where violating those boundaries causes injury and / or possibly death to another.

Part of that concept of truth includes the boundaries of how humans live with each other and interact in a virtuous way.   Without those constraints every man just feeds his lust according to his own belly.

[Thomas Loy Bumgarner]

2 hours ago, waysider said:

Was the wild fig a "community tree"? I don't know. I'd like to have some non Way sources to verify. All we have at the moment is the word of VPW and K.C. Pillai. Maybe they are correct. I'd like to see it from some outside sources, though.

George Lamsa and Rocco Errico mention similar things

[T-Bone]

1 hour ago, chockfull said:

I guess we have the idea floating around that since "truth is free" copyrights don't matter.  i.e. it all belongs to God anyway...(SNIP)

 

Perhaps the topic of truth would be more appropriate in a philosophical discussion sometime - - in the doctrinal forum…but anyway...my humble opinion of Mike’s tendency to lump wierwille’s works in a it’s-forbidden-to-question pile of Bible stuff is merely a ploy to protect a position that is untenable.

Concerning Bible studies, systematic theologies, commentaries and such that quote from the Bible - even if we set aside the notion that the KJV has no copyright status (though it is in the public domain in most of the world   The King James Version   does have a copyright status of Royal Prerogative in the UK ) – I think it is a typical observation by most folks that there is a fairly clear demarcation between the Bible text that is quoted and the explanation or interpretation of that text by the author. And coupled with the fact that bible studies, commentaries, etc. are copyrighted, gives readers a distinct indication that all comments, analogies, explanations, etc. by the author or authors are uniquely their own - i.e. the intellectual property of the authors - - unless of course, they cite another work/giving the appropriate info.

But to claim that wierwille’s plagiarism is merely compiling God’s truth as it was revealed to others actually compounds the errors:

- - Portrays  wierwille’s “works” as having equal footing with that of the Scriptures

- - Justifies the sins of lying and stealing by saying it’s for a good reason, which ironically is to spread God’s truth

- - Blurs the distinction between the Bible text and an interpretation of the text

- - Fosters fanaticism and dogmatism

Edited January 1, 2018 by T-Bone
details

[Grace Valerie Claire]

1 hour ago, chockfull said:

I guess we have the idea floating around that since "truth is free" copyrights don't matter.  i.e. it all belongs to God anyway.

This is kind of a "hippy free love" approach to the scriptures.

I would say the problem with a hippy free love approach is boundaries.  Sure.  Love is free.  Everyone can share.  Except when it comes to these pesky human boundaries that people set up - you know, like marriage, virtue, one wife type of concept.   Where violating those boundaries causes injury and / or possibly death to another.

Part of that concept of truth includes the boundaries of how humans live with each other and interact in a virtuous way.   Without those constraints every man just feeds his lust according to his own belly.

Chock, excellent post!!  In my opinion, the heart of Christianity, teaches people how to "interact in a virtuous way."  I hated all the yelling, and screaming in TWI.  I never understood why there was so much of that nonsense.  I thought the purpose of The Word was to make us better people; not to teach us to snap at each other.  Chock, I think if TWI had taught people to interact with love, and patience, perhaps many of us would still be involved.

[Mike]

7 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Mike, did you first become aware of wierwille’s plagiarism years ago by talking with these grads?

I am curious as to the purpose of these discussions you’ve had with those grads. ..based on your description of the group conversations – noting that you were addressing the issue of plagiarism and the extra effort made (“thought deeper”) – and correct me if I’ve got this wrong – but it sounds like the “angle” you all were working on was how to sidestep wierwille’s plagiarism by redefining the act of stealing. Or was there some other reason for this concerted effort?

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

 

T-Bone,

Thank you, and the others as well.  I wasn’t trying to do any of the slight of hand that my “angle” raised suspicions around. It was merely a lighthearted semi-prank in that I only fed the first half out. Even that first half states the angle is not of my own making, and I have not put much time into thinking it through.

Here’s the second half: VPW’s teaching to us on the Peoples’ Tree simply points out the fact that ownership is a slightly shifty thing.

We were also taught that ownership of the world  was shifted from God to Adam and then from Adam to the adversary with a future shift in store. Do you own your car, or does the bank?  What happens to the owner of a plot of land who doesn't pay his taxes? A bigger owner, the govt, comes in and takes the l and away. When I was doing stand-up comedy we would call my earlier use of the word “shifty” a soft-ball or a toss, for you folks to have at it.

***

My VERY first exposure to thoughts on VPW shifting ownership (successfully) from other authors to himself came in 1972, around the same months that I took the class.

I had read the PFAL book the previous December, and then Bullinger’s “How To Enjoy the Bible” before I took the class. I asked the smarter kids in the fellowship about the similarities. I was ELECTRIFIED that there were other smart researchers in agreement with VPW.  I was also SOOOO thankful that VPW’s version was so SIMPLE and EASY to read that the teenagers ate it up. No one but me was into the Bullinger book. They did pass Bullinger's Companion Bible around each class to show teh 4 crucified with Christ, so everyone knew about Bullinger.

I  thought his “How To Enjoy the Bible” was dense, difficult reading, and I was very skilled at reading all kinds of technical, philosophical, and hookey-pook books. In later years I found Bullinger’s books on numbers and stars almost unreadable. I hated them. Saving them now for my old age... next month or so.

In early 1972 I also found in our local bookstore Kenyon book and a few others.

At that time I felt VPW was totally up front with his sources, and gladly, with none of the academic clutter.  Later that year Elena Whiteside’s book came out and his formal disclaimer of originality I saw and remembered often. Then I lost track of it’s location for decades, until Oldiesman resurrected it here 10 years ago,  MUCH to everyone’s shock. I’m sure everyone did their best to forget it until I found it and re-posted it last month.

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

 

It seems obvious to me that OldSkool thwarted the sidestep by bringing back the legal aspect of wierwille’s plagiarism – ignoring the whole fairy tale ploy…

but now I am curious…in your rebuff to the peoples’ court reference – are you suggesting wierwille’s plagiarism is above the law by appealing to “higher principles”?   If so, please explain.

 

No, I don’t advocate that anything is above the law, because… that’s what the law says.

I do believe in higher principles and jurisdictions, but fortunately God hardly ever is in conflict with man’s courts. It does happen, but thankfully rare. When it does happen, I posted a few days ago that it’s the “classic civil disobedience” deal if God doesn’t protect.  

Does that explain it better?

 

 

[skyrider]

Quote

Mike quote:

I  thought his “How To Enjoy the Bible” was dense, difficult reading, and I was very skilled at reading all kinds of technical, philosophical, and hookey-pook books. In later years I found Bullinger’s books on numbers and stars almost unreadable. I hated them. Saving them now for my old age... next month or so.

Gee........."unreadable".......sounds just like what wierwille said of B.G. Leonard's material.

Now, I just think you're mimicking the wierwille screed......

[Mike]

37 minutes ago, skyrider said:

Gee........."unreadable".......sounds just like what wierwille said of B.G. Leonard's material.

Now, I just think you're mimicking the wierwille screed......

Nope. Bullinger writing style REALLY was a stuffy old English academic and high on churchiness.  The only reason I could understand his "How to Enjoy the Bible" was I had the PFAL book to translate.

I knew nothing of BGL back in the early 70s. 

Also don't ever remember VPW saying BGL was dense and unreadable. Where did he say that?

Edited January 2, 2018 by Mike

[Mike]

37 minutes ago, skyrider said:

Gee........."unreadable".......sounds just like what wierwille said of B.G. Leonard's material.

This is interesting. New to me. I wonder if VPW thought Bullinger was unreadable to most students?   If I were VPW I'd want to translate their light for the everyday  believer. It was a need. I needed it. I know others who needed it.

[Mike]

4 hours ago, Thomas Loy Bumgarner said:

George Lamsa and Rocco Errico mention similar things

Thank you. Good to know.

[So_crates]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

 

No, ownership is easy when all these people who claim to follow the bible, search the bible:

So what of Roman 13:2:

So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow.

Couple that with I Peter 2:13:

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

How does man's law define theft? 

You've already admitted Saint Vic violated the copyright laws

So, where's the problem?

And as your mulling over that remember Proverbs 1:11:

A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

Edited January 2, 2018 by So_crates

[Rocky]

I wonder, what has twi done when some interloper tries to breech their copyrights? Anyone know?

[T-Bone]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

T-Bone,

Thank you, and the others as well.  I wasn’t trying to do any of the slight of hand that my “angle” raised suspicions around. It was merely a lighthearted semi-prank in that I only fed the first half out. Even that first half states the angle is not of my own making, and I have not put much time into thinking it through.

Here’s the second half: VPW’s teaching to us on the Peoples’ Tree simply points out the fact that ownership is a slightly shifty thing.

We were also taught that ownership of the world  was shifted from God to Adam and then from Adam to the adversary with a future shift in store. Do you own your car, or does the bank?  What happens to the owner of a plot of land who doesn't pay his taxes? A bigger owner, the govt, comes in and takes the l and away. When I was doing stand-up comedy we would call my earlier use of the word “shifty” a soft-ball or a toss, for you folks to have at it.

***

My VERY first exposure to thoughts on VPW shifting ownership (successfully) from other authors to himself came in 1972, around the same months that I took the class.

I had read the PFAL book the previous December, and then Bullinger’s “How To Enjoy the Bible” before I took the class. I asked the smarter kids in the fellowship about the similarities. I was ELECTRIFIED that there were other smart researchers in agreement with VPW.  I was also SOOOO thankful that VPW’s version was so SIMPLE and EASY to read that the teenagers ate it up. No one but me was into the Bullinger book. They did pass Bullinger's Companion Bible around each class to show teh 4 crucified with Christ, so everyone knew about Bullinger.

I  thought his “How To Enjoy the Bible” was dense, difficult reading, and I was very skilled at reading all kinds of technical, philosophical, and hookey-pook books. In later years I found Bullinger’s books on numbers and stars almost unreadable. I hated them. Saving them now for my old age... next month or so.

In early 1972 I also found in our local bookstore Kenyon book and a few others.

At that time I felt VPW was totally up front with his sources, and gladly, with none of the academic clutter.  Later that year Elena Whiteside’s book came out and his formal disclaimer of originality I saw and remembered often. Then I lost track of it’s location for decades, until Oldiesman resurrected it here 10 years ago,  MUCH to everyone’s shock. I’m sure everyone did their best to forget it until I found it and re-posted it last month.

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

It seems obvious to me that OldSkool thwarted the sidestep by bringing back the legal aspect of wierwille’s plagiarism – ignoring the whole fairy tale ploy…

but now I am curious…in your rebuff to the peoples’ court reference – are you suggesting wierwille’s plagiarism is above the law by appealing to “higher principles”?   If so, please explain.

 

No, I don’t advocate that anything is above the law, because… that’s what the law says.

I do believe in higher principles and jurisdictions, but fortunately God hardly ever is in conflict with man’s courts. It does happen, but thankfully rare. When it does happen, I posted a few days ago that it’s the “classic civil disobedience” deal if God doesn’t protect.  

 

Does that explain it better?

 

Mike:

Thank you, and the others as well.  I wasn’t trying to do any of the slight of hand that my “angle” raised suspicions around. It was merely a lighthearted semi-prank in that I only fed the first half out. Even that first half states the angle is not of my own making, and I have not put much time into thinking it through.

T-Bone:

Gee whiz Mike, as it is I think you have sabotaged your own credibility here by some of the other things you’ve said on Grease Spot – do you really think it was wise to pull a “lighthearted semi-prank”?

Now you’re really feeding my suspicions – was that “prank” actually something you came up with and you attempted to run it up the flagpole to see what kind of reaction it received?

I will agree with you on the one thing you said “I have not put much time into thinking it through.” Yeah, I thought your flimsy account had all the telltale signs of a fabricated story – though it was years ago…a group of grads made an extra effort to “think deeper” on wierwille’s plagiarism…how timely since we’ve been discussing that on this thread. And another odd thing - I might believe there was a discussion of one of wierwille’s  teachings – and that would be the focus of deep thinking…but plagiarism? It just doesn’t ring true……and of course, you say you didn’t think of it first – they did…it was their idea that you’re merely repeating here...sorry – I’m not buying it.

== == == ==

Mike:

Here’s the second half: VPW’s teaching to us on the Peoples’ Tree simply points out the fact that ownership is a slightly shifty thing.

T-Bone:

Mike, what is your definition of a fact? A fact is something that is indisputable – like the title deed to a house, or a copyright  – in a court of law it proves ownership. I think your idea of ownership sounds very shifty indeed.

== == == ==

Mike:

We were also taught that ownership of the world  was shifted from God to Adam and then from Adam to the adversary with a future shift in store.

T-Bone:

Perhaps you were taught wrong. According to Psalm 24:1 The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it. The world and all its people belong to him NLT…Can you provide passages to support your belief?

== == == ==

Mike:

In early 1972 I also found in our local bookstore Kenyon book and a few others.

At that time I felt VPW was totally up front with his sources, and gladly, with none of the academic clutter.  Later that year Elena Whiteside’s book came out and his formal disclaimer of originality I saw and remembered often. Then I lost track of it’s location for decades, until Oldiesman resurrected it here 10 years ago,  MUCH to everyone’s shock. I’m sure everyone did their best to forget it until I found it and re-posted it last month.

T-Bone:

How does wierwille’s awfully vague disclaimer of originality in Whiteside’s book prove he was totally upfront with his sources? Especially since he doesn't specifically name any of them!...I still have Bullinger’s “How to Enjoy the Bible” – it still has the Way Bookstore price tag of $6.25 on it - I think I bought mine in '74. Do you think Bullinger (if he were still alive) or his estate…or the copyright owner would be satisfied by what you said? Would wierwille's flimsy vague disclaimer of originality fly in any court of law as an appeal to let him slide on copyright infringement? ....On the facing page of the preface in "How to Enjoy the Bible" it reads:

“All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.”

I don’t recall any “used by permission” statements with citation of Bullinger’s book in any of the PFAL books – though it’s obvious wierwille lifted whole sections of Bullinger’s book. How is that being upfront about his sources?

Edited January 2, 2018 by T-Bone
formatting

[waysider]

3 hours ago, Mike said:

We were also taught that ownership of the world  was shifted from God to Adam and then from Adam to the adversary with a future shift in store. Do you own your car, or does the bank?  What happens to the owner of a plot of land who doesn't pay his taxes? A bigger owner, the govt, comes in and takes the l and away. 

This is an apples to oranges comparison, a false equivalence, or whatever term you choose to use.

 

3 hours ago, Mike said:

At that time I felt VPW was totally up front with his sources, and gladly, with none of the academic clutter.  Later that year Elena Whiteside’s book came out and his formal disclaimer of originality I saw and remembered often

This is just flat out false. Wierwille was NOT "totally upfront with his sources". If anything, he was deliberately vague with his sources. In addition, Whiteside's recalling of Wierwille's  off -the -cuff statement was not at all a "formal disclaimer of originality". I suggest you go back and reread that section of her book and look at her statement in context. For that matter, why not just go ahead and post her actual statement here, in context, and let others see what she wrote.

[Mike]

Everyone here is arguing VERY POORLY against me IF IT IS THE CASE that PFAL (and some of its predecessors) is God-breathed, and therefore owned by God. This ownership is current, and not that vague, overall, eventual ownership someone keeps throwing at me.

But you don’t want to come over to my side to see this and the good sense it makes. Try it; you might like it. In order to see that I am correct you must temporarily adopt my assumptions to see the logical structure I have constructed here.

Now, I’ll show you how to do it. I’ll come over to your side.

***

Ok, here I am on your side (little stale here). I’ve dropped my fundamental assumption that PFAL is God-breathed, and I’ve read all your arguments.  

Everyone here is arguing CORRECTLY against me regarding PFAL and plagiarism, as I hold onto this temporary assumption that PFAL did NOT originate from God.

There, I just came over to your side (temporarily) to adopt your assumption. Not one of you folks have done this kind of temporary assumption adoption yet.  This is obvious to anyone who is reading this dialog. You’re all ragging on me from your side of the Assumption Bar.

I agree that if my assumption is wrong, then I’m SUPER wrong in everything I said about plagiarism and PFAL. The fact that none of you want to admit the converse (PFAL from God, no plagiarism) is obvious to all.

If my assumption is wrong, then I’m in deep doo doo.

If my assumption is right, then eventually you’ll have to face the fact that all my plagiarism arguments were right, and were deliberately unseen.

***

Anyone want to see a proof that PFAL is God-breathed? It wont come from bull-headedly insisting it’s pure evil.  It comes from becoming meek again.

BTW, none of my plagiarism arguments are designed to inspire you to come back to PFAL. God will have to do that. I argue what I do on this topic to show you I am not mindlessly worshipping VPW, and that I have put a massive amount of careful thought into recognizing the great merits of PFAL.

I am able to face great opposition with my mindset. Can you folks claim the same?

I think you get too little resistance in these issues. I wish more proPFAL posters would be here to help me show you folks how much you’ve NOT sufficiently thought through. Come over to my side of the Assumption Bar and show the readers here how mentally flexible you can be. So far you’ve meticulously avoided ALL MENTION of how right I am IF it is the case that PFAL is God-breathed.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Mike

[T-Bone]

An assumption is something that is accepted as true without proof. What proof...what facts...what logic do you offer as reasons to accept your viewpoint?

Why would I want to adopt assumptions that are based on lies and logical fallacies?

I think if you actually did read all the arguments you might have noticed how much you misrepresent God and the Bible. I see nothing desirable or that makes sense on that side.

[Rocky]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Everyone here is arguing VERY POORLY against me IF IT IS THE CASE that PFAL (and some of its predecessors) is God-breathed, and therefore owned by God. This ownership is current, and not that vague, overall, eventual ownership someone keeps throwing at me.

But you don’t want to come over to my side to see this and the good sense it makes. Try it; you might like it. In order to see that I am correct you must temporarily adopt my assumptions to see the logical structure I have constructed here.

Now, I’ll show you how to do it. I’ll come over to your side.

***

Ok, here I am on your side (little stale here). I’ve dropped my fundamental assumption that PFAL is God-breathed, and I’ve read all your arguments.  

Everyone here is arguing CORRECTLY against me regarding PFAL and plagiarism, as I hold onto this temporary assumption that PFAL did NOT originate from God.

There, I just came over to your side (temporarily) to adopt your assumption. Not one of you folks have done this kind of temporary assumption adoption yet.  This is obvious to anyone who is reading this dialog. You’re all ragging on me from your side of the Assumption Bar.

I agree that if my assumption is wrong, then I’m SUPER wrong in everything I said about plagiarism and PFAL. The fact that none of you want to admit the converse (PFAL from God, no plagiarism) is obvious to all.

If my assumption is wrong, then I’m in deep doo doo.

If my assumption is right, then eventually you’ll have to face the fact that all my plagiarism arguments were right, and were deliberately unseen.

***

Anyone want to see a proof that PFAL is God-breathed? It wont come from bull-headedly insisting it’s pure evil.  It comes from becoming meek again.

BTW, none of my plagiarism arguments are designed to inspire you to come back to PFAL. God will have to do that. I argue what I do on this topic to show you I am not mindlessly worshipping VPW, and that I have put a massive amount of careful thought into recognizing the great merits of PFAL.

I am able to face great opposition with my mindset. Can you folks claim the same?

I think you get too little resistance in these issues. I wish more proPFAL posters would be here to help me show you folks how much you’ve NOT sufficiently thought through. Come over to my side of the Assumption Bar and show the readers here how mentally flexible you can be. So far you’ve meticulously avoided ALL MENTION of how right I am IF it is the case that PFAL is God-breathed.

Again, quasi-intellectual bull$hit.

What it really boils down to is that you make a strong case that YOU BELIEVE Pflap is God-breathed. OTOH, you don't necessarily make a strong case for PFLAP actually being God-breathed.

You don't even make a strong case that anyone else considers PFLAP to be "pure evil."

[Rocky]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Everyone here is arguing VERY POORLY against me IF IT IS THE CASE that PFAL (and some of its predecessors) is God-breathed, and therefore owned by God. This ownership is current, and not that vague, overall, eventual ownership someone keeps throwing at me.

But you don’t want to come over to my side to see this and the good sense it makes. Try it; you might like it. In order to see that I am correct you must temporarily adopt my assumptions to see the logical structure I have constructed here.

Now, I’ll show you how to do it. I’ll come over to your side.

***

Ok, here I am on your side (little stale here). I’ve dropped my fundamental assumption that PFAL is God-breathed, and I’ve read all your arguments.  

Everyone here is arguing CORRECTLY against me regarding PFAL and plagiarism, as I hold onto this temporary assumption that PFAL did NOT originate from God.

There, I just came over to your side (temporarily) to adopt your assumption. Not one of you folks have done this kind of temporary assumption adoption yet.  This is obvious to anyone who is reading this dialog. You’re all ragging on me from your side of the Assumption Bar.

I agree that if my assumption is wrong, then I’m SUPER wrong in everything I said about plagiarism and PFAL. The fact that none of you want to admit the converse (PFAL from God, no plagiarism) is obvious to all.

If my assumption is wrong, then I’m in deep doo doo.

If my assumption is right, then eventually you’ll have to face the fact that all my plagiarism arguments were right, and were deliberately unseen.

***

Anyone want to see a proof that PFAL is God-breathed? It wont come from bull-headedly insisting it’s pure evil.  It comes from becoming meek again.

BTW, none of my plagiarism arguments are designed to inspire you to come back to PFAL. God will have to do that. I argue what I do on this topic to show you I am not mindlessly worshipping VPW, and that I have put a massive amount of careful thought into recognizing the great merits of PFAL.

I am able to face great opposition with my mindset. Can you folks claim the same?

I think you get too little resistance in these issues. I wish more proPFAL posters would be here to help me show you folks how much you’ve NOT sufficiently thought through. Come over to my side of the Assumption Bar and show the readers here how mentally flexible you can be. So far you’ve meticulously avoided ALL MENTION of how right I am IF it is the case that PFAL is God-breathed.

 

 

[Rocky]

Mike,

We're not going to change YOUR reality and YOU are not going to change OUR reality.

 

[waysider]

3 hours ago, Mike said:

If my assumption is wrong, then I’m in deep doo doo.

What's that smell?

[Mike]

3 hours ago, T-Bone said:

An assumption is something that is accepted as true without proof. What proof...what facts...what logic do you offer as reasons to accept your viewpoint?

Why would I want to adopt assumptions that are based on lies and logical fallacies?

I think if you actually did read all the arguments you might have noticed how much you misrepresent God and the Bible. I see nothing desirable or that makes sense on that side.

Everyone must select basic assumptions in life, and build from there.

Euclid's Geometry does this. It starts with Euclid's BEST set of FIVE assumptions or postulates, and built the rest from there.

[waysider]

15 minutes ago, Mike said:

Everyone must select basic assumptions in life, and build from there.

Euclid's Geometry does this. It starts with Euclid's BEST set of FIVE assumptions or postulates, and built the rest from there.

Again...apples and oranges.

[Mike]

3 hours ago, Rocky said:

What it really boils down to is that you make a strong case that YOU BELIEVE Pflap is God-breathed. OTOH, you don't necessarily make a strong case for PFLAP actually being God-breathed.

Correct. In this argument the topic is plagiariam, and for that topic I do not make ANY case for why I believe PFAL is God-breathed. I save that for other arguments. Here I am answering your questions as to how and why your arguments on plagiarism don't undermine or even challenge my fundamental assumptions of PFAL God-breathedness.

I arrived at this assumption around 1998, after many backs and forths in learning for 27 years. I was around 50 years old and ready to solidify on SOMETHING. I saw PFAL as the best thing to make as my sole center of reference.

Can you name yours? Do you have a single one or do you slop around with what's comfortable at the moment?

What is your POSITIVE affirmation? What do you believe in as being bigger than you and therefor your boss?

*********

You don't even make a strong case that anyone else considers PFLAP to be "pure evil."

What I see here is everyone adopting the model that VPW was pure evil.

What I see here is everyone being slightly schizo when it comes to the PFAL material. In one personality you seem  to regard the material as sacred and wonderful in the hands of BGL and Kenyon and Bullinger. Then your alter personality seems to regard the same material as evil and damaging when presented in the PFAL class, even though thousands loved it and largely benefited by it.

 

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by Mike

[Mike]

3 hours ago, Rocky said:

Mike,

We're not going to change YOUR reality and YOU are not going to change OUR reality.

 

I agree. At least we're not going to change (and especially not quickly) as a result of this kind of posting.

What we CAN do is come to a better understand each others' very greatly differing positions. After that happens we might then compare ideas better, and decide on better courses of action.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Mike

[Mike]

15 hours ago, chockfull said:

I guess we have the idea floating around that since "truth is free" copyrights don't matter.  i.e. it all belongs to God anyway.

This is kind of a "hippy free love" approach to the scriptures.

I would say the problem with a hippy free love approach is boundaries.  Sure.  Love is free.  Everyone can share.  Except when it comes to these pesky human boundaries that people set up - you know, like marriage, virtue, one wife type of concept.   Where violating those boundaries causes injury and / or possibly death to another.

Part of that concept of truth includes the boundaries of how humans live with each other and interact in a virtuous way.   Without those constraints every man just feeds his lust according to his own belly.

I think I can 98% agree with this.  Even the copyrights thing is important... MOST of the time.

I love the hippie thing, but I also see it's limitations and distortions.

[Mike]

14 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Perhaps the topic of truth would be more appropriate in a philosophical discussion sometime - - in the doctrinal forum…but anyway...my humble opinion of Mike’s tendency to lump wierwille’s works in a it’s-forbidden-to-question pile of Bible stuff is merely a ploy to protect a position that is untenable.

Concerning Bible studies, systematic theologies, commentaries and such that quote from the Bible - even if we set aside the notion that the KJV has no copyright status (though it is in the public domain in most of the world   The King James Version   does have a copyright status of Royal Prerogative in the UK ) – I think it is a typical observation by most folks that there is a fairly clear demarcation between the Bible text that is quoted and the explanation or interpretation of that text by the author. And coupled with the fact that bible studies, commentaries, etc. are copyrighted, gives readers a distinct indication that all comments, analogies, explanations, etc. by the author or authors are uniquely their own - i.e. the intellectual property of the authors - - unless of course, they cite another work/giving the appropriate info.

But to claim that wierwille’s plagiarism is merely compiling God’s truth as it was revealed to others actually compounds the errors:

- - Portrays  wierwille’s “works” as having equal footing with that of the Scriptures

 

Not exactly. 

The original Scriptures no one has.

We have only tattered remnants of them from the 3rd or 4th century. The modern (16^th century and later) scholarly reconstructions of the ancient scriptures known as the “Critical Greek Texts” are void of authority.

We also have no official, authoritative, God-breathed, English translation of the ancient scriptures. NONE.

I am saying the PFAL writings are the only God-breathed documents in the world right now, and as such they are on an equal footing with the ancient Scriptures when they were in the world long ago.