Jumping to Concussions in a Rush to Judgement

[Mike]

40 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Does no one see a distinction between what is known and what is believed? Between certainty and probability?

What I pay attention to is what a person is willing to bet their life on, with all of life's investments.

There are a few different kinds of surety, and a few different kinds of proof or derivations of surety.

[OldSkool]

5 minutes ago, Mike said:

disagree with the methods and attitudes with which that detection process was conducted.

Please enumerate said methods and attitudes..that would be a service to me cause there's lots of methods and attitudes...are methods nullified by attitudes? I guess what's the relation. I would think intellectual honesty would be more important but hey...I'm listening.

[Mike]

34 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

May I ask why you are here? We discuss the collaterals often enough but the list of error is long.

I think the ministry's woes are not traceable to the collaterals, but to the T.V.T.s and the Corps  people who magnified them.

[Mike]

1 minute ago, OldSkool said:

Please enumerate said methods and attitudes..that would be a service to me cause there's lots of methods and attitudes...are methods nullified by attitudes? I guess what's the relation. I would think intellectual honesty would be more important but hey...I'm listening.

I mentioned them in more detail to Nathan above this way:

Pretty much the same methods [in PFAL] we were taught to work the ancient Scriptures (often tattered remnants), where it is assumed [attitude]  that the originals were perfect revelation.  I admit that is an unusual method, but that is where my search led me and said "this is the end of the rainbow."

[OldSkool]

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

I think the ministry's woes are not traceable to the collaterals, but to the T.V.T.s and the Corps  people who magnified them.

I disagree...I think the behaviours are directly proportional to the doctrines...wierwille wrapped his actions in doctrinal error at most every turn as far as I can tell.

[OldSkool]

10 minutes ago, Mike said:

Pretty much the same methods we were taught to work the ancient Scriptures (often tattered remnants), where it is assumed that the originals were perfect revelation.  I admit that is an unusual method, but that is where my search led me and said "this is the end of the rainbow."

Which is what...your being purposely elusive. Are you talking about keys to the words intrepretation in pfal?

[OldSkool]

Just now, OldSkool said:

Which is what...your being purposely elusive. Are you talking about keys to the words intrepretation in pfal?

Also...what attitudes...?

[Nathan_Jr]

13 minutes ago, Mike said:

Pretty much the same methods we were taught to work the ancient Scriptures (often tattered remnants), where it is assumed that the originals were perfect revelation.  I admit that is an unusual method, but that is where my search led me and said "this is the end of the rainbow."

Not an answer. What are the methods?

[Mike]

7 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

Which is what...your being purposely elusive. Are you talking about keys to the words intrepretation in pfal?

Yes.

[Mike]

8 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

Which is what...your being purposely elusive. Are you talking about keys to the words intrepretation in pfal?

I did not mean to be elusive. 

I thought I said it plainly, but maybe a little to compactly.

 

[Mike]

Real time chatting like this is easy to get posts lost in the shuffle.

I got to slow down.

[Nathan_Jr]

14 minutes ago, Mike said:

I mentioned them in more detail to Nathan above this way:

Pretty much the same methods [in PFAL] we were taught to work the ancient Scriptures (often tattered remnants), where it is assumed [attitude]  that the originals were perfect revelation.  I admit that is an unusual method, but that is where my search led me and said "this is the end of the rainbow."

You have yet to mention details. This is not a gotcha. It’s a simple question.

What are your methods?

[OldSkool]

21 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

Also...what attitudes...?

I'm interested in the attitudes and how attitudes affect methods. Emotional attitude? Mental attitude? ... Thx.

[Nathan_Jr]

29 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

Which is what...your being purposely elusive. Are you talking about keys to the words intrepretation in pfal?

Keys to how words interpret themselves?

Seriously. Just trying to understand. Help a brotha out, please.

[OldSkool]

4 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Keys to how words interpret themselves?

Seriously. Just trying to understand. Help a brotha out, please.

Well...I'm not going to say what they are...I might have a newer version where something's been edited out. So Mike would need to list em.

[Nathan_Jr]

3 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

Well...I'm not going to say what they are...I might have a newer version where something's been edited out. So Mike would need to list em.

Fair enough. Let's see if Mike can get honest with his answers. We've asked honest questions.

Can you answer me this: Are we talking about the keys to words interpreting themselves?

[Mike]

24 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Fair enough. Let's see if Mike can get honest with his answers. We've asked honest questions.

Can you answer me this: Are we talking about the keys to words interpreting themselves?

Gee Wizz !

It's a Christmas Quiz !

Please think through your peppering of me with questions. 

I think many of them you can answer in detail just by browsing the table of contents for the PFAL book.  If you don't have that book, why not get one?  You should have a copy of that which you criticize.

*/*/*/*

One of the great illusions attached to debates it the urge to rush, to come up with the best answer QUICK. Going fast is good for a movie depiction of a debate, and the last one to stump the other one is the manifest winner.  That is not the way proofs and derivations go in math and science.

In regards to this timing thing, one of the PFAL keys to work difficult but important passages of text ..... is being willing to place an apparent anomaly off to the back burner, even it it takes 15 years to get the answer.   That is one of the keys I use in working the Bible, PFAL, and posted text here.   There is a place (Way Mag Our Times Jul/Aug 1979) where VPW says that the PFAL keys could be applied to just about any texts, not just the Bible.

*/*/*/*/*/*

Anyway, I get little spurts of time to work on these posts with you folks, and then I need to do other chores.

While I am not answering your questions to me, why not brainstorm amongst yourselves for possible answers. It will save me some time if I don't have to do a lot of careful reading and composing.  If you present me with a list of possible answers, I can quickly check off the  easy ones.

Going slow is often better for thoroughness on both sides.

[Mike]

40 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Fair enough. Let's see if Mike can get honest with his answers. We've asked honest questions.

Can you answer me this: Are we talking about the keys to words interpreting themselves?

Yes, and whatever keys that are not in that category of the Bible interpreting itself. That category is 80 pages in the book.  I think there are other keys in that book outside that section, and some in RHST also. 

Even Orientalisms is a key that I use for working the PFAL collaterals, except I translate it over to Ohio-isms.   

Example: my first printing of the Blue Book there is a phrase something like "un-loosing a dog," which is an Ohio expression for un-leashing a dog. It was changed in all the other printings to remove the Ohio-ism.

So that's two keys I use to work the collaterals:  wait however long for the answer, and Ohio-isms can be involved.

[Nathan_Jr]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

Yes, and whatever keys that are not in that category of the Bible interpreting itself. That category is 80 pages in the book.  I think there are other keys in that book outside that section, and some in RHST also. 

Even Orientalisms is a key that I use for working the PFAL collaterals, except I translate it over to Ohio-isms.   

Example: my first printing of the Blue Book there is a phrase something like "un-loosing a dog," which is an Ohio expression for un-leashing a dog. It was changed in all the other printings to remove the Ohio-ism.

So that's two keys I use to work the collaterals:  wait however long for the answer, and Ohio-isms can be involved.

Thanks. So, words interpret themselves? Great. I'll start working that key to test for its efficacy.

 

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Thanks. So, words interpret themselves? Great. I'll start working that key to test for its efficacy.

I once had a long argument over this here, and I demonstrated how Stephen King would write so that his story would interpret itself.... eventually. 

Mystery stories exploit the idea of placing hidden keys that can be uncovered by only the most astute readers.  I think Conan Doyle pioneered this style of deliberately making it a mystery, but also having clues planted.

I should search for that debate in my archives someday.

[chockfull]

3 hours ago, Mike said:

Anything negative about VP you refute then later try to claim you don’t idolize him.
-Not anything; but yes, some few things.  
I walk away from anything refuting the written collaterals, especially if the methods used to probe the collaterals differ extremely from my chosen methods.

your chosen methods are pretty much walk away from anything refuting the written collaterals.

BUT

you always speak of them in a collective “the collaterals” and we never get a sense of what specifically there you are clinging to.  Gives the impression of just a stubborn set idea of generalities.

 

I take note of my ignorance the best I can, because I am a total expert on the Dunning-Kruger Effect, having read a couple articles on it.

but a total blind man regarding confirmation bias.

You have some kind of weird vision about yourself that you are the reincarnation of Luke the physician sent to give an “accurate and loving “ account of TWI history.
-No, I am only trying to imitate him and what he did.

I am NOT trying to write anything God-breathed;  just accurate and balanced, and thorough enough.

It looks like an unvarnished history of the Church’s history was a good thing in Luke’s time. I think the same thing is important to do for TWI, especially now that the primary witnesses are dying off fast.

I do not want to do this alone. I want others to jump in and help me with this. I don’t want to be the chairman of that committee, because that is an area I have no solid knowledge.

Hallelujah!  We already have started this.  There are 3 published books available.  Do you also intend to publish opinions in a book or just content to troll GS?

The current written history of TWI consists of two channels:  sanctioned and unsanctioned.
Right.  GreaseSpot is the major shareholder in the unsanctioned text at this time, IMO. 

An unsanctioned history, if well written enough, could get recognized by TWI-7 a few decades from now.  It could also get recognized by thousands of proPFAL grads right now, as well as those grads not proPFAL.

Are you writing it?  You seem to be the sole voice on one side there.

 

Sanctioned - Mrs VPW book which only covers before 1980s.  I was around when this was being written and my feedback is it was highly coerced.
-Her history is useful, and part of the mix, but it has nothing to say of POP or the Schoenheit Paper or RnR

Ummm duh that was post 1980.

The Way Living In Love - the ONLY literary record of VPs KoolAid snowstorm story which was fact checked to be false by multiple sources.

-I would insist it be kept in the mix, even though I don’t buy the fact checking, and debated it several times here.  

The fact checking would pass any journalism or court standards.  Not selling it to you so don’t care if you buy.

 

HOWEVER, the 1942 snowstorm is NOT in the collaterals, and therefore not critical that I maintain belief in it. 

Outside of that there is zero interesting reason for PFAL.  

It wouldn’t be crossing my boundaries to think VPW made mistakes in his recounting the stories. I sometimes merge memories and get facts of my past incorrect

 It  [The Way Living In Love] was removed from sale in the bookstore at some point and can’t be bought there anymore.  

 

 

-I would suspect the REASON it was removed has nothing to do with the snowstorm(s) being fact-checked here. 

Here or somewhere else - the simple matter is it is now as unsanctioned as the other 3.

 

Far more probably is the USUAL POLICY of removing anything in TWI history that “are no longer standing with the ministry.”   When I worked in Tape Duplicating there would be a memo a couple times per year to “pull” the old SNT teaching tapes of a new ex-Way minister. We sold by mail and at large events many popular “back issues” of the SNT tapes.

Yes I have called out plenty the hypocrisy of no research department but a full time job in publishing removing “cop out” traces.

Another probable reason for its removal is Elena Whiteside “no longer standing with the ministry.” 

Another probable reason is Elena objected to it being sold.

Yes getting a royalty check from TSCM is not happening ever.

3 hours ago, Mike said:

Unsanctioned - 3 published books 
-Reading one; not in a rush for the others.

Yes you are 1/3 through and have already gone thru 2 public judgmental commentary cycles.  You’re not in a rush to finish that one - certainly did not take me a week to read cover to cover.  I’m thinking 2-3 days.

When you are done read the others.  If you desire to present a balanced new book it would not be intellectually honest to censor the other 2 and refuse to read them.

Look in T bones footnotes for publishing links
-I save some of his links. Who knows when I get the time for them. …when I think I need them for something.

All 3 unsanctioned books detail personal stories of negative overall impact in life of TWI.
-Familiar with them, and a few others. I had some of the impact on my twig in 1980 that I have reported here several times.  I personally have seen problems here and I pitched in to help, as I am doing now.

Read them.

If you have a different perspective write your own autobiography.

 

 

[OldSkool]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

You should have a copy of that which you criticize.

I have electronic or paperback copies of all that I critiscize...and Im still not answering your question for you or spending anymore time in those books than needed...

[WordWolf]

Ok, I should check the Orange Book myself and see what it says about the verses. Clear enough.

Ok, found what I was looking for, in the Orange Book, pages 127-128.

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'. "

[WordWolf]

That said a lot. One of the things it said was that vpw was slow in learning what were the most recent copies extant.  The average layman, as of 1942, could have learned better than that. (With the internet, we know a lot more than that.)  He had the centuries wrong, and the languages wrong. "Aramaic primacy" has gone the way of the do-do because older resources have surfaced- in Greek, and older by more than a century.   By pinning his hopes on the obscure "Aramaic first" movement, vpw added another layer of "only we have the secret answers"- but only did so at the expense of passing along ERROR to twi.  Since this was before the internet, he neither cared nor thought they'd get caught teaching ERROR.

Anyone foolish enough to lock their thinking into thinking vpw was correct in both century and language, exposes their deficiencies rather plainly.   EVERYBODY knows better by now- at least, those who care and bother to spend more than a few seconds looking things up.

Another thing it said was that "WE" can get to "thus saith the LORD" -and outlined the process how WE could get there.  It was pretty straightforward.   Anyone claiming vpw was the final word on things, that vpw was authoritative on things, who has the nerve to contradict him on the actual things- like how we can get to "thus saith the LORD"-  well, hypocrisy is sometimes easy to find.

[Nathan_Jr]

37 minutes ago, WordWolf said:

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

Aramaic in Estrangelo script.

As WordWolf points out, victor was WAY off on this. Not even close. If a "doctor" could be so, so inaccurate about how (H-O-W) we got the Bible, what other egregious errors might he spew?

Anyone can find out. Test all things.