You wrote: “Who taught in what class that 90% of KJV interprets itself right where written??? As for the other 10%, I have had more practice than you know anything about, so you'll just have to excuse me if I don't limit myself to your small, petty view of God Almighty”
You committed the Error or Eve in sloppy handling of what we were taught.
Here is what we were taught, and in written form:
PFAL page 147:
“It was a remarkable revelation to us who do Biblical research to discover that the vast majority of the Word of God does interpret itself right where it is written. I would estimate that from Genesis to Revelation 85 to 90 per cent of the Word of God interprets itself in the verse.”
You misquoted it, you got it wrong. Your memory botched it.
You said “KJV” while Dr wrote: “Word of God.”
I know what you’re thinking! What DEEEFERENCE does it make! A lot of difference. Dr accurately handled both of terms along with “Bible” while we all handled them synonymously. We were taught that they are NOT synonymous.
To alfakat and the team of unfit researchers here,
What difference does it make?
First of all, the Bible is in the senses world, as printed twice on page 27 of the 7th ed. of RHST, while the Word of God is spiritual and existed before the senses world was created as per John 1:1.
***
Let’s look at some more of the differences between the Word of God and the KJV as we were taught, and you and your unfit researchers have forgotten, assuming you got in the first place.
PFAL page 127 - 128:
“The Bible from which I have been quoting is called the King James Version. It is not the King James translation. If I had the 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 manuscript is from 464 A.D. and written in Aramaic in Estrangelo script. There are older Aramaic manuscripts written in the Estrangelo script which predate 464 A.D., but these are not Biblical texts. What students or scholars refer to as “originals” really date from 464 A.D. 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 A.D., 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 it 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.”230 We gather information through our five senses from a source or sources outside ourselves. We come to conclusions from our accumulated knowledge, and thus we believe what we believe. Being aware of the process of learning, I came to the conclusion many years ago that for me the Word of God (not the King James Version, but the Word of God which was given when “... holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”) would be my source for truth. This is my center of reference for learning.”
***
Here’s another key passage showing us the difference between KJV and the Word of God.
PFAL page 230:
We gather information through our five senses from a source or sources outside ourselves. We come to conclusions from our accumulated knowledge, and thus we believe what we believe. Being aware of the process of learning, I came to the conclusion many years ago that for me the Word of God (not the King James Version, but the Word of God which was given when “... holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”) would be my source for truth. This is my center of reference for learning.
Mike, your religious views sound very similar to the Mormons who advocate their own book of Mormon. They too say that the bible is tattered remnants. Interestingly, I just happened to see a special on the History channel the other night on "Who wrote the Bible". It was very interesting.
So tell us again why you think a sexual predator such as Victor Wierwille is the new apostle to replace all others?
Your "Bible" is not the Bible. You can't find a single Bible anywhere on earth.
What you can find are versions of translations of modern reconstructions of ancient fragmented miscopies of the originals.
All the idolatrous trust you accuse me of with VPW is happening in your life in spades.
You trust the translators, the compilers, the scholars, and many more. Many of them could be very evil, even born again of the wrong seed. There are thousands of them. How many can you even name?
I do not hold dear the credos that you do, Mike--you knew what I meant but you thought you were doing something very significant by correcting me--and thus proving my point. You cannot see the forest for your imaginairy "trees", Mike. I am sorry for you, Mike--I would not live where you do for all the tea in China...your claims are old and tired, Mike. My interests lie not in your man-made minutia but in the clear, plain truth of Jesus Christ and His gospel; your slavish devotion to vp's re-wording of the blood, sweat and tears of other men interests me not in the slightest. You rant on, Mike--your S/N ratio is as bad as ever....
The advanced search features looks interesting. I will have to try it sometime. Mike, your reasoning needs work to say the least. Victor Wierwille quotes often from the bible in his books. However, some how now this bible that Wierwille quotes from is no good or as you say tattered remnants. However, Wierwille's writings, even though he often quotes from these tattered remnants while incidentally plagerizing the written study of others, are some how a perfect divine revelation. Furthermore, only Victor's words now truly matter with regard to truth and godliness even though he often quotes from tattered remnants. Does that about sum up your religious convictions?
I'm not claiming to be a researcher. I honestly really don't give a hoot.
I have not accused you with anything. Just coming back with your own words is all.
Since I have left twi I have learned not to have idols in my life. I have come to the reality of life.
Again, mike I have noticed that you speculate about my life. Do you think your receiving 'revelation' or something? If you think so it might be a lying spirit.
I wasn't posting to spar with you mike, I started this with humor trying to keep it with humor but I notice that you want to 'bait' me.
Let the game begin.
If you do not tell the truth about yourself you can not tell it about other people.
quote: Resistance to innovation is clearly demonstrated, not by the ignorant masses, but by professionals with a vested interest in tradition and the monopoly of learning.
Arthur Koestler, The Age of Velikovsky.
We GSers ARE the masses that Koestler talks about. We don't have a vested interest in believing one Way or another, and we don't sit in a room and agree on theology. I have heard people in these forums mention a number of different belief systems (including atheism, agnosticism, shamanism, Judaism, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, without reproach from other Gspotters. Disagreement, yes. But not reproach to the extent that Mike receives. Don't you understand why?
And BTW, your logic is flawed. Many innovators come from outside the establishment, but that does not make every person whose views are outside the mainstream an innovator. It may make him a nut!
I hear you. I’m not trying to get tough with you here.
I've been careful. I know that there are lots of pitfalls in what I do, but it seems others think they're safe in nudging up to tradition and what others are doing. That safety is illusory. All of life is a risk, and we have to do the best we can, paying attention to as many details as possible, and walking in love as much as possible. I expect God to correct me where I’m wrong.
Have you ever wondered how men like Paul and Moses ventured out far from tradition? It HAD to be scary for them, but what’s the alternative?
Your cautions are all valid. I’ve pondered them for many years. I just caution you and everyone here to be just as cautious with what seems safe to you now.
We were given something good and wonderful in PFAL, and that adversary threw dog poop all over it. We owe it to ourselves to get some good soap and clean off the negative associations and check out the contents of those books.
Arthur Koestler was one of the most intellectual giants of the 20the century. Anyone know of or read any other works by him? I just found a first edition of “Sleep Walkers” at the Salvation Army for one dollar while searching for PFAL books.
Does his name ring a bell here at all? Anyone? No fair Googling.
I feel you’re baiting me, and I’ve given you enough time in the past. Get honest and search out all my 1900 posts for your answers. If you want to convince me of your humility and readiness to learn from me, then send me your phone number. I can be convinced if you really want to learn, but so far you’ve convinced me of the exact opposite. I don’t have time to waste on your games. I feel I should spend time with other posters here.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
27
24
19
107
Popular Days
Feb 3
140
Feb 11
42
Feb 1
39
Feb 2
38
Top Posters In This Topic
alfakat 27 posts
rascal 24 posts
oldiesman 19 posts
Mike 107 posts
Popular Days
Feb 3 2004
140 posts
Feb 11 2004
42 posts
Feb 1 2004
39 posts
Feb 2 2004
38 posts
Mike
alfakat,
You wrote: “Who taught in what class that 90% of KJV interprets itself right where written??? As for the other 10%, I have had more practice than you know anything about, so you'll just have to excuse me if I don't limit myself to your small, petty view of God Almighty”
You committed the Error or Eve in sloppy handling of what we were taught.
Here is what we were taught, and in written form:
PFAL page 147:
“It was a remarkable revelation to us who do Biblical research to discover that the vast majority of the Word of God does interpret itself right where it is written. I would estimate that from Genesis to Revelation 85 to 90 per cent of the Word of God interprets itself in the verse.”
You misquoted it, you got it wrong. Your memory botched it.
You said “KJV” while Dr wrote: “Word of God.”
I know what you’re thinking! What DEEEFERENCE does it make! A lot of difference. Dr accurately handled both of terms along with “Bible” while we all handled them synonymously. We were taught that they are NOT synonymous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
So Mike, You weren't kidding about JC coming with a pfal book in his hand?....
If you do not tell the truth about yourself you can not tell it about other people.
virginia woolfe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Totally serious. I've already seen him this way more than once.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
To alfakat and the team of unfit researchers here,
What difference does it make?
First of all, the Bible is in the senses world, as printed twice on page 27 of the 7th ed. of RHST, while the Word of God is spiritual and existed before the senses world was created as per John 1:1.
***
Let’s look at some more of the differences between the Word of God and the KJV as we were taught, and you and your unfit researchers have forgotten, assuming you got in the first place.
PFAL page 127 - 128:
“The Bible from which I have been quoting is called the King James Version. It is not the King James translation. If I had the 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 manuscript is from 464 A.D. and written in Aramaic in Estrangelo script. There are older Aramaic manuscripts written in the Estrangelo script which predate 464 A.D., but these are not Biblical texts. What students or scholars refer to as “originals” really date from 464 A.D. 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 A.D., 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 it 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.”230 We gather information through our five senses from a source or sources outside ourselves. We come to conclusions from our accumulated knowledge, and thus we believe what we believe. Being aware of the process of learning, I came to the conclusion many years ago that for me the Word of God (not the King James Version, but the Word of God which was given when “... holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”) would be my source for truth. This is my center of reference for learning.”
***
Here’s another key passage showing us the difference between KJV and the Word of God.
PFAL page 230:
We gather information through our five senses from a source or sources outside ourselves. We come to conclusions from our accumulated knowledge, and thus we believe what we believe. Being aware of the process of learning, I came to the conclusion many years ago that for me the Word of God (not the King James Version, but the Word of God which was given when “... holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”) would be my source for truth. This is my center of reference for learning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
Geeze, and I thought it was your sense of humor. LOL
If you do not tell the truth about yourself you can not tell it about other people.
virginia woolfe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
Mike, you go on straining at gnats--knock your socks off. You undoubtedly tithe of mint, anise and cummin, too.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
viclkes,
I posted earlier that it is a VERY SMALL leap from “PFAL is God’s written revealed Word” to “Jesus Christ is very interested in PFAL.”
Did you think I was kidding about PFAL being God-breathed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Mike, your religious views sound very similar to the Mormons who advocate their own book of Mormon. They too say that the bible is tattered remnants. Interestingly, I just happened to see a special on the History channel the other night on "Who wrote the Bible". It was very interesting.
So tell us again why you think a sexual predator such as Victor Wierwille is the new apostle to replace all others?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
alfakat,
These are very important distinctions. They are the difference between life and death.
Eve thought like you, that the details didn't matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Mark,
Go back and read it how I've posted your answer dozens of times. Do you know how to use the Advanced Search features?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
Mike, No I believe that you truly believe that PFAL is God-breathed, but I haven't read anywhere in the Word that that is true.
If you do not tell the truth about yourself you can not tell it about other people.
virginia woolfe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
vickles,
Do you mean you can't find it in your KJV, that man made book?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
I'm talking about all the bible's that you can find. It will not state anything about a new book coming by a supposed prophet for our day and time.
Pfal is not the bible. Some guy named vpw wrote that book, copied from other writings. It was not God-breathed, that is for sure.
If you do not tell the truth about yourself you can not tell it about other people.
virginia woolfe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I will be leaving for a while. I can't wait to see how this plays out in my absence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
vickles,
Your "Bible" is not the Bible. You can't find a single Bible anywhere on earth.
What you can find are versions of translations of modern reconstructions of ancient fragmented miscopies of the originals.
All the idolatrous trust you accuse me of with VPW is happening in your life in spades.
You trust the translators, the compilers, the scholars, and many more. Many of them could be very evil, even born again of the wrong seed. There are thousands of them. How many can you even name?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
I do not hold dear the credos that you do, Mike--you knew what I meant but you thought you were doing something very significant by correcting me--and thus proving my point. You cannot see the forest for your imaginairy "trees", Mike. I am sorry for you, Mike--I would not live where you do for all the tea in China...your claims are old and tired, Mike. My interests lie not in your man-made minutia but in the clear, plain truth of Jesus Christ and His gospel; your slavish devotion to vp's re-wording of the blood, sweat and tears of other men interests me not in the slightest. You rant on, Mike--your S/N ratio is as bad as ever....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
Mike--- very politely: Blow it out your As*!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
The advanced search features looks interesting. I will have to try it sometime. Mike, your reasoning needs work to say the least. Victor Wierwille quotes often from the bible in his books. However, some how now this bible that Wierwille quotes from is no good or as you say tattered remnants. However, Wierwille's writings, even though he often quotes from these tattered remnants while incidentally plagerizing the written study of others, are some how a perfect divine revelation. Furthermore, only Victor's words now truly matter with regard to truth and godliness even though he often quotes from tattered remnants. Does that about sum up your religious convictions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
Mike,
I'm not claiming to be a researcher. I honestly really don't give a hoot.
I have not accused you with anything. Just coming back with your own words is all.
Since I have left twi I have learned not to have idols in my life. I have come to the reality of life.
Again, mike I have noticed that you speculate about my life. Do you think your receiving 'revelation' or something? If you think so it might be a lying spirit.
I wasn't posting to spar with you mike, I started this with humor trying to keep it with humor but I notice that you want to 'bait' me.
Let the game begin.
If you do not tell the truth about yourself you can not tell it about other people.
virginia woolfe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Dear WhatTheHay,
You quoted Koestler...
We GSers ARE the masses that Koestler talks about. We don't have a vested interest in believing one Way or another, and we don't sit in a room and agree on theology. I have heard people in these forums mention a number of different belief systems (including atheism, agnosticism, shamanism, Judaism, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, without reproach from other Gspotters. Disagreement, yes. But not reproach to the extent that Mike receives. Don't you understand why?And BTW, your logic is flawed. Many innovators come from outside the establishment, but that does not make every person whose views are outside the mainstream an innovator. It may make him a nut!
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
vickles,
I hear you. I’m not trying to get tough with you here.
I've been careful. I know that there are lots of pitfalls in what I do, but it seems others think they're safe in nudging up to tradition and what others are doing. That safety is illusory. All of life is a risk, and we have to do the best we can, paying attention to as many details as possible, and walking in love as much as possible. I expect God to correct me where I’m wrong.
Have you ever wondered how men like Paul and Moses ventured out far from tradition? It HAD to be scary for them, but what’s the alternative?
Your cautions are all valid. I’ve pondered them for many years. I just caution you and everyone here to be just as cautious with what seems safe to you now.
We were given something good and wonderful in PFAL, and that adversary threw dog poop all over it. We owe it to ourselves to get some good soap and clean off the negative associations and check out the contents of those books.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Arthur Koestler was one of the most intellectual giants of the 20the century. Anyone know of or read any other works by him? I just found a first edition of “Sleep Walkers” at the Salvation Army for one dollar while searching for PFAL books.
Does his name ring a bell here at all? Anyone? No fair Googling.
memories... memories...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Mark,
I feel you’re baiting me, and I’ve given you enough time in the past. Get honest and search out all my 1900 posts for your answers. If you want to convince me of your humility and readiness to learn from me, then send me your phone number. I can be convinced if you really want to learn, but so far you’ve convinced me of the exact opposite. I don’t have time to waste on your games. I feel I should spend time with other posters here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I've got to go. See you all later.
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.