But wouldn't that be a different "it" that you just brought up?
For "It is written" to refer to the KJV would mean, "It is written with flaws" ?
But the motto surely does not mean that. It means that "SOMETHING that was settled is the last word... the buck stops HERE, at something substantial and is written." The "it" in the motto refers to God's Word, not to scholarly reconstructions that include errors.
Mike, actually the way corps motto came from the gospels - during Jesus’ temptations in the wilderness, his reply to the devil began with “it is written”
By that phrase Jesus was obviously referring to something specifically noted in a certain text...to OT passages applicable to the situations presented by the devil.
So what specific errors are you alluding to? to me it seems that Jesus' use of the OT scriptures was perfect...I don't see any contradictions...misapplications...or that there's anything missing from the accounts.
Do you mean you don’t think Jesus’ response was adequate to thwart the devil’s temptations? So what do you mean "it is written with flaws"? I've heard wierwille teach on the temptations of Jesus several times and he NEVER addressed any textual errors in the KJV - and the KJV was all he used for those teachings.
You’ve got my curiosity up now- - - could you please provide a detailed list of “the flaws” in the KJV passages used in the corps program as well as the reason why they should not be considered “God’s Word”
....and also could you explain why there wasn’t a disclaimer issued to that effect in any corps material we studied (for example: “this isn’t God’s Word but the reason we quote from it is because this is the only thing currently available ”)
Or better yet WHY didn’t wierwille just use his own translation all the time? like those literal translation according to usage...I wouldn't trust those now - especially after reading "Undertow" and Penworks' account of how wierwille pressured the research department to kowtow to his doctrinal preferences.
Seems like a clunky or precarious way to communicate or teach God’s Word if there’s yet another undefined step to truly understand a different meaning from KJV ...I mean wierwille used KJV to provide “retemories” to support way corps principles, besides the fact that it’s almost exclusively the only version quoted in PFAL - - - so how are all the passages he quoted NOT Gods Word?
sorry to ask so many questions but it does seem odd to me that you say you're really into PFAL as being uniquely the God-breathed word and so critical of what the corps program was all about - yet you never were in the corps program.
I was in the corps program and I can tell you flat out – it was all about PFAL… and wierwille, as well as the entire faculty used the KJV in their teachings; and often that (the KJV) was referred to as “the word” or “God’s word”. And I don't recall a whole bunch of text corrections as being a big part of the curriculum - or any part for that matter.
I mean, even in teachings for the general public we’ve all heard TWI-teachers announce “I’m going to teach on what God’s word says about finances” and then they open up their KJV bible and start teaching.
anyone can say that they’re going to share the word of God on a particular subject from any number of decent translations available – but I think the more critical thing to consider is whether or not they’re handling the word of God deceitfully...that's a fascinating point mentioned in II Corinthians 4:2 - "not handling the word of God deceitfully" - so it is possible to have in your possession the word of God and yet by your preaching or teaching you can use it deceitfully...wierwille's smoke and mirrors led people to believe he was going for the original text - - but in reality he was altering the intent of a passage.
...and that's why I am suspicious of anything wierwille taught and why I have nothing to do with PFAL and TWI. wierwille and company have a proven track record of being consummate hypocrites and have mastered the art of being crazy-smart-deceitful...in the corps, we learned "the word" alright - really it was wierwille's skewed interpretation of the word of God.
…Mike, I suspect you may have allowed some logical fallacies perpetrated by wierwille to cloud your ability to think clearly. How can you discount the KJV or any reputable translation as not being God’s word? What bearing does PFAL have on the great doctrines of the church? I asked you this earlier in another post but I’ll bring it up again. what great impact would PFAL have to the Christian faith? what difference would it make to a Christian who already follows the Bible as his only rule for faith and practice?
I tend to think wierwille presented a false dilemma with his rhetoric of having to "get back to the original God-breathed word" - almost like how a shell game is used to perpetrate fraud; "where are you going to find the word? is it in that denomination, or from that minister? no, I (wierwille) have it right here because I'm the only one who really knows how to rightly divide the word".
he made it sound so scholarly how "we have to compare texts"...i have over 40 different versions of the Bible in book form - a lot more if you count the eBooks and Bible apps I have on devices...taking into account the different types of translation used (dynamic equivalence, literal, paraphrase, etc.) I am hard pressed to find any major or even minor theological shifts due to a variation in the text...
but wierwille had lots of people going with his shell game - you have to trust him to show you how the text should be understood....you even admitted this in an earlier post - when you referred to wierwille's writings as more along the lines of commentaries...I suggest you get into some commentaries by scholars who are honest and don't have a hidden agenda...if you're interested I can make a few recommendations.
and to me there is something very deceitful about giving folks the idea that "this is what it should read in the original text" - when all he was doing was throwing a lot of weight into his own interpretation. honestly - wierwille was not about getting back to the original God-breathed word - it was all about him manipulating folks to get on board with what he thought the Bible should say, plain and simple. And he would often refer to this as "the word", "God's Word", "the original God-breathed word"...what a fraud ! what a liar !
wierwille was an incompetent plagiarist...he stole Bullinger's work on the keys to the interpretation of the Bible but wierwille's conclusion differed from Bullinger's in a dramatic way. The text they both referred to was II Peter 1:20 knowing this first no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation...Bullinger emphasized the genitive of origin - i.e. no scripture originated by private interpretation or one's own ideas...wierwille twisted it - to infer that no scripture may be privately interpreted - and then forwarded the idea that the Bible must interpret itself - which is a totally preposterous !
And another thing, how can anyone trust wierwille's interpretation of a passage or how the original text should read in the Greek text when he lied about taking any Greek classes through Moody Bible School correspondence courses...he said he did...but it's a matter of public record that he never took any of their courses. what a liar! What a fraud! so deceitful!
Edited by T-Bone re-doing a previous post - screwed up in formatting
Ok- Mike is right regarding the Bible that we have only remakes of what was said to have been once the Godbreathed Word.
So, since the PFAL books do not attempt to cover specifically every verse of whatever the originals were, maybe PFAL is God’s Reader Digest Condensed version or “Scripture Lite???
How comforting that is. It fits with VPW’s Bigly Condensed PhD. (sigh).
I do have a question though. Since the later editions of the PFAL series are a little different than the original editions, was it the original edition that was god-breathed or the revised ones? Weren’t the originals revised BECAUSE of errors found in them? What about the errors in the later versions? Damn this is confusing!
I guess God decided a lot of his original god-breathed scriptures were superfluous fluff...or maybe he realized he made mistakes in them and is trying to cover it up by doing PFAL Bible Lite Condensed and Revised. What a mess!
I do have a question though. Since the later editions of the PFAL series are a little different than the original editions, was it the original edition that was god-breathed or the revised ones?
Someplace in this thread, Mike stated it's the final written form.
Well he seems to have said it both ways so it is confusing. No matter, I don’t believe in the whole god breathed concept of anything anyway
Exactly. In earlier threads, from years gone by, he has claimed it's the original PFAL materials. Now he claims it's the finished written form of the collaterals. I guess it's whatever will suit his purpose at a given moment. The God Breathed Bible concept is fueled by circular logic, using the Bible to prove the Bible.
The “smoothing out” our brains tend to do is strong.
I had a phone conversation with a very proPFAL person about 10 years ago. She was an early leader, WOW, and all around respected Corps leader. She loved VPW and the class.
As we talked I’d give he my thesis on PGAL being God-breathed. She’s say yes, and then move on, but I could tell she didn’t get it. I tried several times, several ways, and every time she’d yes me to death and move on.
Finally, Iasked her to pull out her PFAL book and read along with me. She gladly did. I was reading a verse, and then I read the text that follows.I called her attention to the verse and said, “That is the written Word of God.” She said yes again. I then called her attention to the following paragraph and said, “That is the written Word of God.”
She screamed, hung up the phone, and has not talked to me since.
I would really like to hear her version of the story
I get that...actually I was just fascinated that she was WOW, corps and pro-PFAL and yet from Mike’s version of the story - at the conclusion she seemed to have had the same reaction to Mike’s spiel as the folks on Grease Spot... that just struck me as extremely funny....oh I’m sorry - was that story meant to bolster his thesis? ....my bad...maybe I “should have read it in the original”.
I get that...actually I was just fascinated that she was WOW, corps and pro-PFAL and yet from Mike’s version of the story - at the conclusion she seemed to have had the same reaction to Mike’s spiel as the folks on Grease Spot... that just struck me as extremely funny....oh I’m sorry - was that story meant to bolster his thesis? ....my bad...maybe I “should have read it in the original”.
Even the handful of people who buy into Holocaust denial because vpw taught it, and vpw's ridiculous 1942 claim long after it was thoroughly discredited, and laud vpw as some great one, STILL reject Mike's claim that pfal replaced the Bible. There's a limit to how much Kool-Aid each person can drink, and they draw the line there if no further.
Mike claims in PLAF Saint Vic said, Thus sayeth the Lord, 22 times.
Sifting through my memory, I can maybe remember once, maybe.
But, if that's all it takes, saying, Thus sayeth the Lord, what if I said, Thus sayeth the Lord PLAF is drek. Does that negate PLAF?
6 minutes ago, waysider said:
PLAF negates itself quite nicely without any divine intervention.
True Waysider......but for those who need a sign - maybe you could also claim there was an inverted snowstorm in July...similar to Forrest Gump’s experience in Vietnam “sometimes the rain even seemed to come straight up”
vpw was casual about plagiarizing all through his "career" so long as he knew he wouldn't get caught. Remember how we were NEVER supposed to go to other versions, just the KJV and whatever he said it meant? Well, he said Philippians 4:13 meant "I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Him who infuses inner strength into me." There was even a song about it. Fans of the Amplified Bible would have found his statement interesting, to say the least. There, it reads:
"I can do all things [which He has called me to do] through Him who strengthens and empowers me [to fulfill His purpose—I am self-sufficient in Christ’s sufficiency; I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Him who infuses me with inner strength and confident peace.]
I'm sure fans of "his" "literals according to usage" should spend a lot more time in the Amplified Bible.
Well, I left here yesterday morning thinking I had cleaned up everything, and could concentrate on a big writing project. Then I get notifications of 7 or 8 more posts, now I see they are all about me. I thought you folks wanted a break from me?
I was very encouraged a few times the other day when a few posters asked me questions on my position. Getting those facts straight was cool. However, in reading over the past page of posts I see MANY more misconceptions or misreadings of what I have posted.
I swear, I see two types of intelligence working. One is infrequent and it seeks to understand WHAT is being posted by me.This intelligence asks questions before it pounces.
The other intelligence, far more frequent, seeks to pounce first on whatever looks like a good target in my writing, and then it asks questions to seek more targets.
You can learn a lot about people from the questions they ask.
I spent the past 24 hours pondering lightly the categories in my manifesto that will needed to communicate it. I looked at other threads to see more of where your heads are at after my being gone for ten years. I am searching my own more complete archives for past presentations that will fit into the manifesto project.
But what am I going to do with all the simple correctable errors I see in the past 24 hours of posting?
I am very thankful to those who have attempted to do some real communicating with me. I invite more to join.
Well, I left here yesterday morning thinking I had cleaned up everything, and could concentrate on a big writing project. Then I get notifications of 7 or 8 more posts, now I see they are all about me. I thought you folks wanted a break from me?
I was very encouraged a few times the other day when a few posters asked me questions on my position. Getting those facts straight was cool. However, in reading over the past page of posts I see MANY more misconceptions or misreadings of what I have posted.
I swear, I see two types of intelligence working. One is infrequent and it seeks to understand WHAT is being posted by me.This intelligence asks questions before it pounces.
The other intelligence, far more frequent, seeks to pounce first on whatever looks like a good target in my writing, and then it asks questions to seek more targets.
You can learn a lot about people from the questions they ask.
I spent the past 24 hours pondering lightly the categories in my manifesto that will needed to communicate it. I looked at other threads to see more of where your heads are at after my being gone for ten years. I am searching my own more complete archives for past presentations that will fit into the manifesto project.
But what am I going to do with all the simple correctable errors I see in the past 24 hours of posting?
I am very thankful to those who have attempted to do some real communicating with me. I invite more to join.
Mike, you’ve used interchangeably the words “thesis” (a theory put forward as a premise to be proved) and “manifesto” (a published declaration of intentions, motives or views of the issuer; when related to religious matters it’s referred to as a creed).
Whether it’s a manifesto or a thesis - I think you have some more research to do; I think your complaints in this post are groundless when you ignore specific questions and challenges to many of the points in your thesis / manifesto ;
if you’re referring to a post of mine as pouncing on you - you make it sound like you’re an innocent victim - but what I was doing was calling BS on you forwarding false assumptions about the corps program - something you have openly admitted you’ve never experienced; I also challenged you on the false dilemma you forwarded over the KJV and other translations as lacking validity or authority in matters of faith because they’re not the original first-edition documents from the Almighty’s publishing company.
Mike, have you ever given much thought as to why wierwille’s books, teachings, etc. never gained much traction outside of TWI? In my humble opinion, it’s because wierwille’s shoddy workmanship, blatant plagiarism, and gross incompetence would NOT survive the close scrutiny, peer review and academic standards of the real world. The only way he could get his stuff to fly the friendly skies of fandom - was by persuading followers to buy into his delusion of greatness. If any folks didn’t “get” his message or see his greatness they are labeled critics, unbelievers, possessed, stupid... or whatever fit the bill to counter attacks on his ministry ...whenever those rank unbelievers “pounced” on him.
You can also learn a lot about people from the questions they avoid answering.
Ok. I’m trying to cooperate.
If there’s a quick question you want to ask I’ll try to work with it. ESPECIALLY if it’s a quickie, and hopefully it wont be with the intelligence that seeks only to pounce.
***
I’m coming and going some here some as I copy old threads to the PDF format. I found that Adobe’s PDF search engine is really good and easy. My extended answers to some extended questions that posters recently ask can be found here in old threads.
***
In organizing my manifesto maybe you can answer a question of mine.
I have to decide on which kind of audience to address it to.
I do not want to try addressing it to non-grads.
I prefer to address it to older leader grads (OLGs) who saw the 1070s.
I cannot address it to refugees of Craig and TWI after 1989 due to my ignorance.
Then there’s PFAL grads who are still Christian believers (whatever that means) vs. recent atheists and agnostics. That’s a tough one.
***
Anyway, as I come and go, I’ll check for answers to my audience question, and for any easy quick questions from you.
Oh, what rubbish. Either it fits all or it fits none. If your whatever-it-is is really the revealed word of God, then it should be good for "OLGs," "refugees from Craig," grads, and people who have never heard of TWI.
Do you know, Mike, if people do a PhD (as in "Dr W"), they have a very searching oral examination on the minutiae of the subject of their thesis?
" Once you have submitted your thesis you will be invited to defend your doctorate at a ‘viva voce' (Latin for ‘by live voice') or oral examination. The thesis defence can be a daunting prospect, but many people really enjoy this experience of discussing their PhD research with genuinely interested experts. It can also be a useful networking opportunity. " https://www.vitae.ac.uk/doing-research/doing-a-doctorate/completing-your-doctorate/your-viva
Your Dr W would (if he'd really done a doctorate) have had to defend his thesis (premises) before real experts. He would have to show he really knew his stuff. It's a bit more than delivering a token sermon.
Now then, Mike. You will see if you care to read the link above that to some extent you are being subject to some searching and challenging questions. (I know you aren't defending a PhD but you are presenting some very controversial material.) You have to answer these challenges if you want to be taken seriously. If (as appears) you want people to throw away their Bibles, their compilations of sacred literature going back for millennia, in favour of PFAL material, you have to deal with the challenges as to why that might not be an appropriate course of action.
I daren't even think about you presenting PFAL to a Jewish person, telling them that Moses is a liar or deluded or hadn't got it right, and that some cornfield preacher in Ohio is the only one who really understands God. Never mind "OLGs," "refugees from Craig," and grads.
If there’s a quick question you want to ask I’ll try to work with it. ESPECIALLY if it’s a quickie, and hopefully it wont be with the intelligence that seeks only to pounce.
3 hours ago, So_crates said:
You can also learn a lot about people from the questions they avoid answering.
6 hours ago, So_crates said:
I held off getting involved because I was letting Mike "thesis" play out, but there's still a couple of questions I'm curious about:
a). If the bible is devoid of authority does that mean Revelations is devoid of authority?
b). He claims the bible is devoid of authority because we mark in it. Where does he think the bible gets its authority from?
Mike, you’ve used interchangeably the words “thesis” (a theory put forward as a premise to be proved) and “manifesto” (a published declaration of intentions, motives or views of the issuer; when related to religious matters it’s referred to as a creed).
You're right. I'm learning as I go, having been prodded a little in a new direction for me
Whether it’s a manifesto or a thesis - I think you have some more research to do; I think your complaints in this post are groundless when you ignore specific questions and challenges to many of the points in your thesis / manifesto ;
.Some questions I miss in the flurry, especially when on a bad eye day... or hour. Some I simply don't have time for.Some are obvious bait in a direction I feel is a waste of time. Some I'm stumped on, and want to ponder a little............and then SOME I answer, and even can handle follow-up Qs. Have you done a survey on how many of each category? That's too much work for me.
if you’re referring to a post of mine as pouncing on you -
.NO!I wasn't thinking of you. In the past week or so I have appreciated your heart and our dialogs much. I'm trying hard to remember who is who, and you are one Ido remember as pretty friendly. It would help me MUCH if people used picture icons. Even crazy nasty one would help if that's how you feel about your posting.
you make it sound like you’re an innocent victim - but what I was doing was calling BS on you forwarding false assumptions about the corps program - something you have openly admitted you’ve never experienced;
.I always have admitted my experience and lacks of experience here. Many times even.I payed very close attention to the Corps program for many reasons. I loved many in it. I was often pressured to go in, both by people, tapes, and my own emotions. I investigated it a lot for that and other reasons, for many years. At HQ I was in contact with many 6th and 7th Corps in residence there. As the Internet started revealing what went on inside the Corps starting around 2000 I continued my learning of the Corps.
I also challenged you on the false dilemma you forwarded over the KJV and other translations as lacking validity or authority in matters of faith because they’re not the original first-edition documents from the Almighty’s publishing company.
.This is an extended matter and can take many pages to discuss. We have hardly begun this topic you refer to here. I look forward to facing your challenge here in great detail, as it can find time.
Mike, have you ever given muchthought as to why wierwille’s books, teachings, etc. never gained much traction outside of TWI? In my humble opinion, it’s because wierwille’s shoddy workmanship, blatant plagiarism, and gross incompetence would NOT survive the close scrutiny, peer review and academic standards of the real world. The only way he could get his stuff to fly the friendly skies of fandom - was by persuading followers to buy into his delusion of greatness. If any folks didn’t “get” his message or see his greatness they are labeled critics, unbelievers, possessed, stupid... or whatever fit the bill to counter attacks on his ministry ...whenever those rank unbelievers “pounced” on him.
Oh YES!
have thought of that and A LOT!
(…resisting temptation to extend my answer here)
VPW addressed this issue in the class I think. He said some thing to the effect that if university professorships were awarded to those who produced signs miracles and wonders then there’d be a few empty chairs waiting for occupants.
I agree!Academic theologians can be pretty dead. I actually took a class taught personally by Thomas Altizer of “God is dead” fame. This was after I took PFAL. What a trip. There’s probably no college academician who could get thousands to SIT on a very close to “no one gets missed” basis.
I’m glad VPW was not aiming the blessings God was showing him to gather at an academic audience.
Hmmmm! Maybe that answers a question I just asked So_crates.
a). If the bible is devoid of authority does that mean Revelations is devoid of authority?
b). He claims the bible is devoid of authority because we mark in it. Where does he think the bible gets its authority from?
a) By "devoid of authority" I mean near every English word can be contested by some scholar somewhere; many ancient words by another manuscript somewhere. Something that doesn't have this void can be authoritative. Especially nuanced attitudes that context builds. When I see and understand something from the book of Revelation inside PFAL, then I have something authoritative from that book. So it depends where you read in Revelations and how much of it you read whether it's devoid of authority or not.
b) No. Please read it again. Plus, I'll try again:
Because we mark in it and change words and commas, we are demonstrating that we know what is printed is not authoritative. We are trying to supply something we think is more authoritative when we mark in the KJV, usually.
You also wrote: "Where does he think the bible gets its authority from?"
Didn't I ask you all here? What do YOU think the KJV Bible gets its authority from. That's a more precise question that yours IMO. I don't know exactly what you mean by "the bible." What DO you mean by that ever so slightly ambiguous phrase?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
63
252
68
130
Popular Days
Jan 25
114
Jan 6
58
Jan 9
51
Jan 3
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 63 posts
Mike 252 posts
waysider 68 posts
So_crates 130 posts
Popular Days
Jan 25 2018
114 posts
Jan 6 2018
58 posts
Jan 9 2018
51 posts
Jan 3 2018
45 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."........Thomas Paine.
penworks
Here's an idea: we each drop out of this topic and go read a book.
DontWorryBeHappy
Can anyone tell me dictor paul's scriptural position on the word "Covfefe"? What is the true meaning of that word?? Mike's textual criticism, and use of the basic dictor "keys to research", is as made
Posted Images
T-Bone
Mike, actually the way corps motto came from the gospels - during Jesus’ temptations in the wilderness, his reply to the devil began with “it is written”
By that phrase Jesus was obviously referring to something specifically noted in a certain text...to OT passages applicable to the situations presented by the devil.
So what specific errors are you alluding to? to me it seems that Jesus' use of the OT scriptures was perfect...I don't see any contradictions...misapplications...or that there's anything missing from the accounts.
Do you mean you don’t think Jesus’ response was adequate to thwart the devil’s temptations? So what do you mean "it is written with flaws"? I've heard wierwille teach on the temptations of Jesus several times and he NEVER addressed any textual errors in the KJV - and the KJV was all he used for those teachings.
You’ve got my curiosity up now- - - could you please provide a detailed list of “the flaws” in the KJV passages used in the corps program as well as the reason why they should not be considered “God’s Word”
....and also could you explain why there wasn’t a disclaimer issued to that effect in any corps material we studied (for example: “this isn’t God’s Word but the reason we quote from it is because this is the only thing currently available ”)
Or better yet WHY didn’t wierwille just use his own translation all the time? like those literal translation according to usage...I wouldn't trust those now - especially after reading "Undertow" and Penworks' account of how wierwille pressured the research department to kowtow to his doctrinal preferences.
Seems like a clunky or precarious way to communicate or teach God’s Word if there’s yet another undefined step to truly understand a different meaning from KJV ...I mean wierwille used KJV to provide “retemories” to support way corps principles, besides the fact that it’s almost exclusively the only version quoted in PFAL - - - so how are all the passages he quoted NOT Gods Word?
sorry to ask so many questions but it does seem odd to me that you say you're really into PFAL as being uniquely the God-breathed word and so critical of what the corps program was all about - yet you never were in the corps program.
I was in the corps program and I can tell you flat out – it was all about PFAL… and wierwille, as well as the entire faculty used the KJV in their teachings; and often that (the KJV) was referred to as “the word” or “God’s word”. And I don't recall a whole bunch of text corrections as being a big part of the curriculum - or any part for that matter.
I mean, even in teachings for the general public we’ve all heard TWI-teachers announce “I’m going to teach on what God’s word says about finances” and then they open up their KJV bible and start teaching.
anyone can say that they’re going to share the word of God on a particular subject from any number of decent translations available – but I think the more critical thing to consider is whether or not they’re handling the word of God deceitfully...that's a fascinating point mentioned in II Corinthians 4:2 - "not handling the word of God deceitfully" - so it is possible to have in your possession the word of God and yet by your preaching or teaching you can use it deceitfully...wierwille's smoke and mirrors led people to believe he was going for the original text - - but in reality he was altering the intent of a passage.
...and that's why I am suspicious of anything wierwille taught and why I have nothing to do with PFAL and TWI. wierwille and company have a proven track record of being consummate hypocrites and have mastered the art of being crazy-smart-deceitful...in the corps, we learned "the word" alright - really it was wierwille's skewed interpretation of the word of God.
…Mike, I suspect you may have allowed some logical fallacies perpetrated by wierwille to cloud your ability to think clearly. How can you discount the KJV or any reputable translation as not being God’s word? What bearing does PFAL have on the great doctrines of the church? I asked you this earlier in another post but I’ll bring it up again. what great impact would PFAL have to the Christian faith? what difference would it make to a Christian who already follows the Bible as his only rule for faith and practice?
I tend to think wierwille presented a false dilemma with his rhetoric of having to "get back to the original God-breathed word" - almost like how a shell game is used to perpetrate fraud; "where are you going to find the word? is it in that denomination, or from that minister? no, I (wierwille) have it right here because I'm the only one who really knows how to rightly divide the word".
he made it sound so scholarly how "we have to compare texts"...i have over 40 different versions of the Bible in book form - a lot more if you count the eBooks and Bible apps I have on devices...taking into account the different types of translation used (dynamic equivalence, literal, paraphrase, etc.) I am hard pressed to find any major or even minor theological shifts due to a variation in the text...
but wierwille had lots of people going with his shell game - you have to trust him to show you how the text should be understood....you even admitted this in an earlier post - when you referred to wierwille's writings as more along the lines of commentaries...I suggest you get into some commentaries by scholars who are honest and don't have a hidden agenda...if you're interested I can make a few recommendations.
and to me there is something very deceitful about giving folks the idea that "this is what it should read in the original text" - when all he was doing was throwing a lot of weight into his own interpretation. honestly - wierwille was not about getting back to the original God-breathed word - it was all about him manipulating folks to get on board with what he thought the Bible should say, plain and simple. And he would often refer to this as "the word", "God's Word", "the original God-breathed word"...what a fraud ! what a liar !
wierwille was an incompetent plagiarist...he stole Bullinger's work on the keys to the interpretation of the Bible but wierwille's conclusion differed from Bullinger's in a dramatic way. The text they both referred to was II Peter 1:20 knowing this first no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation...Bullinger emphasized the genitive of origin - i.e. no scripture originated by private interpretation or one's own ideas...wierwille twisted it - to infer that no scripture may be privately interpreted - and then forwarded the idea that the Bible must interpret itself - which is a totally preposterous !
And another thing, how can anyone trust wierwille's interpretation of a passage or how the original text should read in the Greek text when he lied about taking any Greek classes through Moody Bible School correspondence courses...he said he did...but it's a matter of public record that he never took any of their courses. what a liar! What a fraud! so deceitful!
Edited by T-Bonere-doing a previous post - screwed up in formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Ok- Mike is right regarding the Bible that we have only remakes of what was said to have been once the Godbreathed Word.
So, since the PFAL books do not attempt to cover specifically every verse of whatever the originals were, maybe PFAL is God’s Reader Digest Condensed version or “Scripture Lite???
How comforting that is. It fits with VPW’s Bigly Condensed PhD. (sigh).
I do have a question though. Since the later editions of the PFAL series are a little different than the original editions, was it the original edition that was god-breathed or the revised ones? Weren’t the originals revised BECAUSE of errors found in them? What about the errors in the later versions? Damn this is confusing!
I guess God decided a lot of his original god-breathed scriptures were superfluous fluff...or maybe he realized he made mistakes in them and is trying to cover it up by doing PFAL Bible Lite Condensed and Revised. What a mess!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Someplace in this thread, Mike stated it's the final written form.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Well he seems to have said it both ways so it is confusing. No matter, I don’t believe in the whole god breathed concept of anything anyway
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Exactly. In earlier threads, from years gone by, he has claimed it's the original PFAL materials. Now he claims it's the finished written form of the collaterals. I guess it's whatever will suit his purpose at a given moment. The God Breathed Bible concept is fueled by circular logic, using the Bible to prove the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I would really like to hear her version of the story
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
But it's anecdotal evidence...Who can possibly argue with that? /s
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I get that...actually I was just fascinated that she was WOW, corps and pro-PFAL and yet from Mike’s version of the story - at the conclusion she seemed to have had the same reaction to Mike’s spiel as the folks on Grease Spot... that just struck me as extremely funny....oh I’m sorry - was that story meant to bolster his thesis? ....my bad...maybe I “should have read it in the original”.
Edited by T-BoneDetails
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Mike claims in PLAF Saint Vic said, Thus sayeth the Lord, 22 times.
Sifting through my memory, I can maybe remember once, maybe.
But, if that's all it takes, saying, Thus sayeth the Lord, what if I said, Thus sayeth the Lord PLAF is drek. Does that negate PLAF?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
PLAF negates itself quite nicely without any divine intervention.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Even the handful of people who buy into Holocaust denial because vpw taught it, and vpw's ridiculous 1942 claim long after it was thoroughly discredited, and laud vpw as some great one, STILL reject Mike's claim that pfal replaced the Bible. There's a limit to how much Kool-Aid each person can drink, and they draw the line there if no further.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
True Waysider......but for those who need a sign - maybe you could also claim there was an inverted snowstorm in July...similar to Forrest Gump’s experience in Vietnam “sometimes the rain even seemed to come straight up”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
vpw was casual about plagiarizing all through his "career" so long as he knew he wouldn't get caught. Remember how we were NEVER supposed to go to other versions, just the KJV and whatever he said it meant? Well, he said Philippians 4:13 meant "I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Him who infuses inner strength into me." There was even a song about it. Fans of the Amplified Bible would have found his statement interesting, to say the least. There, it reads:
"I can do all things [which He has called me to do] through Him who strengthens and empowers me [to fulfill His purpose—I am self-sufficient in Christ’s sufficiency; I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Him who infuses me with inner strength and confident peace.]
I'm sure fans of "his" "literals according to usage" should spend a lot more time in the Amplified Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I held off getting involved because I was letting Mike "thesis" play out, but there's still a couple of questions I'm curious about:
a). If the bible is devoid of authority does that mean Revelations is devoid of authority?
b). He claims the bible is devoid of authority because we mark in it. Where does he think the bible gets its authority from?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well, I left here yesterday morning thinking I had cleaned up everything, and could concentrate on a big writing project. Then I get notifications of 7 or 8 more posts, now I see they are all about me. I thought you folks wanted a break from me?
I was very encouraged a few times the other day when a few posters asked me questions on my position. Getting those facts straight was cool. However, in reading over the past page of posts I see MANY more misconceptions or misreadings of what I have posted.
I swear, I see two types of intelligence working. One is infrequent and it seeks to understand WHAT is being posted by me. This intelligence asks questions before it pounces.
The other intelligence, far more frequent, seeks to pounce first on whatever looks like a good target in my writing, and then it asks questions to seek more targets.
You can learn a lot about people from the questions they ask.
I spent the past 24 hours pondering lightly the categories in my manifesto that will needed to communicate it. I looked at other threads to see more of where your heads are at after my being gone for ten years. I am searching my own more complete archives for past presentations that will fit into the manifesto project.
But what am I going to do with all the simple correctable errors I see in the past 24 hours of posting?
I am very thankful to those who have attempted to do some real communicating with me. I invite more to join.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You can also learn a lot about people from the questions they avoid answering.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike, you’ve used interchangeably the words “thesis” (a theory put forward as a premise to be proved) and “manifesto” (a published declaration of intentions, motives or views of the issuer; when related to religious matters it’s referred to as a creed).
Whether it’s a manifesto or a thesis - I think you have some more research to do; I think your complaints in this post are groundless when you ignore specific questions and challenges to many of the points in your thesis / manifesto ;
if you’re referring to a post of mine as pouncing on you - you make it sound like you’re an innocent victim - but what I was doing was calling BS on you forwarding false assumptions about the corps program - something you have openly admitted you’ve never experienced; I also challenged you on the false dilemma you forwarded over the KJV and other translations as lacking validity or authority in matters of faith because they’re not the original first-edition documents from the Almighty’s publishing company.
Mike, have you ever given much thought as to why wierwille’s books, teachings, etc. never gained much traction outside of TWI? In my humble opinion, it’s because wierwille’s shoddy workmanship, blatant plagiarism, and gross incompetence would NOT survive the close scrutiny, peer review and academic standards of the real world. The only way he could get his stuff to fly the friendly skies of fandom - was by persuading followers to buy into his delusion of greatness. If any folks didn’t “get” his message or see his greatness they are labeled critics, unbelievers, possessed, stupid... or whatever fit the bill to counter attacks on his ministry ...whenever those rank unbelievers “pounced” on him.
Edited by T-Bonedetails
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ok. I’m trying to cooperate.
If there’s a quick question you want to ask I’ll try to work with it. ESPECIALLY if it’s a quickie, and hopefully it wont be with the intelligence that seeks only to pounce.
***
I’m coming and going some here some as I copy old threads to the PDF format. I found that Adobe’s PDF search engine is really good and easy. My extended answers to some extended questions that posters recently ask can be found here in old threads.
***
In organizing my manifesto maybe you can answer a question of mine.
I have to decide on which kind of audience to address it to.
I do not want to try addressing it to non-grads.
I prefer to address it to older leader grads (OLGs) who saw the 1070s.
I cannot address it to refugees of Craig and TWI after 1989 due to my ignorance.
Then there’s PFAL grads who are still Christian believers (whatever that means) vs. recent atheists and agnostics. That’s a tough one.
***
Anyway, as I come and go, I’ll check for answers to my audience question, and for any easy quick questions from you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Oh, what rubbish. Either it fits all or it fits none. If your whatever-it-is is really the revealed word of God, then it should be good for "OLGs," "refugees from Craig," grads, and people who have never heard of TWI.
Do you know, Mike, if people do a PhD (as in "Dr W"), they have a very searching oral examination on the minutiae of the subject of their thesis?
" Once you have submitted your thesis you will be invited to defend your doctorate at a ‘viva voce' (Latin for ‘by live voice') or oral examination. The thesis defence can be a daunting prospect, but many people really enjoy this experience of discussing their PhD research with genuinely interested experts. It can also be a useful networking opportunity. " https://www.vitae.ac.uk/doing-research/doing-a-doctorate/completing-your-doctorate/your-viva
Your Dr W would (if he'd really done a doctorate) have had to defend his thesis (premises) before real experts. He would have to show he really knew his stuff. It's a bit more than delivering a token sermon.
Now then, Mike. You will see if you care to read the link above that to some extent you are being subject to some searching and challenging questions. (I know you aren't defending a PhD but you are presenting some very controversial material.) You have to answer these challenges if you want to be taken seriously. If (as appears) you want people to throw away their Bibles, their compilations of sacred literature going back for millennia, in favour of PFAL material, you have to deal with the challenges as to why that might not be an appropriate course of action.
I daren't even think about you presenting PFAL to a Jewish person, telling them that Moses is a liar or deluded or hadn't got it right, and that some cornfield preacher in Ohio is the only one who really understands God. Never mind "OLGs," "refugees from Craig," and grads.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
30 minutes ago, T-Bone said:
Mike, you’ve used interchangeably the words “thesis” (a theory put forward as a premise to be proved) and “manifesto” (a published declaration of intentions, motives or views of the issuer; when related to religious matters it’s referred to as a creed).
You're right. I'm learning as I go, having been prodded a little in a new direction for me
Whether it’s a manifesto or a thesis - I think you have some more research to do; I think your complaints in this post are groundless when you ignore specific questions and challenges to many of the points in your thesis / manifesto ;
.Some questions I miss in the flurry, especially when on a bad eye day... or hour. Some I simply don't have time for. Some are obvious bait in a direction I feel is a waste of time. Some I'm stumped on, and want to ponder a little. ...........and then SOME I answer, and even can handle follow-up Qs. Have you done a survey on how many of each category? That's too much work for me.
if you’re referring to a post of mine as pouncing on you -
.NO! I wasn't thinking of you. In the past week or so I have appreciated your heart and our dialogs much. I'm trying hard to remember who is who, and you are one I do remember as pretty friendly. It would help me MUCH if people used picture icons. Even crazy nasty one would help if that's how you feel about your posting.you make it sound like you’re an innocent victim - but what I was doing was calling BS on you forwarding false assumptions about the corps program - something you have openly admitted you’ve never experienced;
.I always have admitted my experience and lacks of experience here. Many times even. I payed very close attention to the Corps program for many reasons. I loved many in it. I was often pressured to go in, both by people, tapes, and my own emotions. I investigated it a lot for that and other reasons, for many years. At HQ I was in contact with many 6th and 7th Corps in residence there. As the Internet started revealing what went on inside the Corps starting around 2000 I continued my learning of the Corps.I also challenged you on the false dilemma you forwarded over the KJV and other translations as lacking validity or authority in matters of faith because they’re not the original first-edition documents from the Almighty’s publishing company.
.This is an extended matter and can take many pages to discuss. We have hardly begun this topic you refer to here. I look forward to facing your challenge here in great detail, as it can find time.
Mike, have you ever given much thought as to why wierwille’s books, teachings, etc. never gained much traction outside of TWI? In my humble opinion, it’s because wierwille’s shoddy workmanship, blatant plagiarism, and gross incompetence would NOT survive the close scrutiny, peer review and academic standards of the real world. The only way he could get his stuff to fly the friendly skies of fandom - was by persuading followers to buy into his delusion of greatness. If any folks didn’t “get” his message or see his greatness they are labeled critics, unbelievers, possessed, stupid... or whatever fit the bill to counter attacks on his ministry ...whenever those rank unbelievers “pounced” on him.Oh YES!
have thought of that and A LOT!
(…resisting temptation to extend my answer here)
VPW addressed this issue in the class I think. He said some thing to the effect that if university professorships were awarded to those who produced signs miracles and wonders then there’d be a few empty chairs waiting for occupants.
I agree! Academic theologians can be pretty dead. I actually took a class taught personally by Thomas Altizer of “God is dead” fame. This was after I took PFAL. What a trip. There’s probably no college academician who could get thousands to SIT on a very close to “no one gets missed” basis.
I’m glad VPW was not aiming the blessings God was showing him to gather at an academic audience.
Hmmmm! Maybe that answers a question I just asked So_crates.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
What's with all this hemming and hawing? Did Peter beat around the bush after Pentacost? Did Paul dance people around at Mars Hill?
Did Saint Vic tell us to speak with boldness?
Still aviding my two questions I see. Why?
a). If the bible is devoid of authority does that mean Revelations is devoid of authority?
b). Mike claims the KJV is devoid of authority because we mark in it. Where does he think the bible gets its authority from?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It was a computer glitch here. That's how Internet chats work these days.
I'm working on your two questions now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
a) By "devoid of authority" I mean near every English word can be contested by some scholar somewhere; many ancient words by another manuscript somewhere. Something that doesn't have this void can be authoritative. Especially nuanced attitudes that context builds. When I see and understand something from the book of Revelation inside PFAL, then I have something authoritative from that book. So it depends where you read in Revelations and how much of it you read whether it's devoid of authority or not.
b) No. Please read it again. Plus, I'll try again:
Because we mark in it and change words and commas, we are demonstrating that we know what is printed is not authoritative. We are trying to supply something we think is more authoritative when we mark in the KJV, usually.
You also wrote: "Where does he think the bible gets its authority from?"
Didn't I ask you all here? What do YOU think the KJV Bible gets its authority from. That's a more precise question that yours IMO. I don't know exactly what you mean by "the bible." What DO you mean by that ever so slightly ambiguous phrase?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.