That's because he made a boo boo in PFAL and wouldn't correct it forever. It just never made any sense to me the way it was taught in PFAL. I got what he was trying to say but not how he said it.
I don't think it was an error per se, just a convoluted way of trying to communicate something.
The way the teaching went, IIRC, was that the word "all" could be used in two different ways.
In either case it's going to be an inclusive word encompassing everything thing within it's supposed category.
Hence it could mean "all" without any exceptions whatsoever, or "all" within a certain category without any distinction in that category.
Yes, it's a ridiculous bit of hairsplitting designed to paper over the fact that sometimes words are used with something less than "a mathematical exactness and a scientific precision" in the Holy Writ. But I think it gives us a little insight into the mind of the Vickster. Things didn't work real well in there, from what I can tell...
Okay........following Hammer's point, I pulled out Bullinger's work How to enjoy the Bible.
p. 109......."This is the key to the understanding of those many passages where the words all and every and world are used in the New Testament. All must mean one of two things: either 'all without exception' or 'all without distinction;' and it is in this latter sense it is constantly used in contrast with the one nation of Israel." (bottom of page)
Now.....this forum is NOT the doctrinal forum.....and I have no intention of quibbling over the meaning and nuances and all that.
BUT.....WHAT I DO FIND INTERESTING TO NOTE.....is that in twi, we were always taught that vpw came up with "his research" INDEPENDENT of Bullinger. God showed vpw these things.....and he taught them (in pfal 68).
Later.....it seems that even vpw was confused on this issue and revamped what he "borrowed" from Bullinger. Granted, to vpw's credit....he changed his teaching on this "biblical key to research."
Yet....to this day, the foundational keys in pfal are still confusing for many.
Wierwille changed it publically at the live class, PFAL '77. He said it in a "the research department made me say this, but you know what I meant, dontcha" kind of way.
Wouldn't it have made the point simpler just to say, "All without exception, all with exception?"
Did they manage to edit out every time he said "out" in the later editions of PFAL? And how is Mike gonna justify Wierwille's using it one way for all those years, then changing the "revelation?"
This subject has come up several times here, AND I've been working it for a couple of years now. Anyone can operate the Advanced Search function under the "FIND" button to see what I've handled so far.
I do remember the pregnant pause in Dr's delivery of that phrase in PFAL '77. He did change it there, but then again, that class mysteriously disappeared from sight in many significant ways, as I've noted in my first post in the "Masters of the Word-..." thread.
I do NOT remember him saying anything to the effect that the Research Department made him say it that way in the PFAL'77 class itself, though. Is your memory of him saying that one that places it within the class, or on it's periphery, like backstage, or at lunch? You have proved to me your having a memory better than most, so I'm very interested in your answer to this question.
***
Again, in my first post in the "Masters of the Word-..." thread I note that at lunch just days before the start of that '77 class Dr indicated that he had been arm twisted to designate that class as the replacement for the '67 film class. In that dramatic lunch meeting he pulled the plug on those plans, though.
It seems that his changing of his handling of "all" in PFAL'77 was one where the arm twisting was successful, but Dr went ahead after the class and yanked it from circulation.
***
This reminds me of another place where arm twisting got Dr doubting his own original revelations by those doubters with which he was surrounded. In his last live teaching of PFAL at Gunnison he re-arraigned his teaching of Eli Eli, OR SO I'M TOLD.
In recent years I've consulted with one TB, formerly of the Research Department. He went on to study the Aramaic and found abundant documention for the original '67 approach that Llamsa and Dr used. He will someday write it up. Another reseacher I'm in touch with has debunked the doubts that arose concerning the interogative nature of the "Eli Eli" cry. Both of these men have seen that the Research Department got on some sloppy trails toward the end of Dr's life.
***
The PFAL book was changed in minor ways over the years to correct typos and a few other things, and this is reflected in the printing designations placed in the opening pages. HOWEVER, neither the "all without distinction" nor "Eli Eli" were altered.
One of the keys I am using in working "all without distinction" is I'm searching out ALL the places where these words and similar ones come up in the writings. The "all" issue comes up in different ways in JCNG and in GMWD. Plus I'm slowly working all the places where Dr used the word "exception" and where he used "distinction."
This other key is one I insist on using: go slow. These matters are way too important to shoot from the hip impulsively.
I'm also working the OTHER places where Bullinger brings it up besides in "How to Enjoy the Bible."
quote:BUT.....WHAT I DO FIND INTERESTING TO NOTE.....is that in twi, we were always taught that vpw came up with "his research" INDEPENDENT of Bullinger. God showed vpw these things.....and he taught them (in pfal 68).
God showed VPW these things via men of God scattered across the continent. His PFAL books say he learned from men of God scattered across the continent. I never heard he got PFAL independent of people. Maybe that's what you thought at one time?
You're absolutely right. Dr often told us he collected it from places God guided him to.
Those grads who fell into the hero worship mode regarding Dr, but who never seriously worked the material he taught, were easily seduced and set up to believe he came up with it all, like a divine dictation, or that he researched it all out from scratch, whatever that means.
Those who bought the hero image are the ones most bitterly disappointed when he fell short of their expectations. Those who worked the material were properly impressed back then and will be even more impressed when they work it again.
1. Wierwille mentions in the PFAL video that Dr. Higgins turned him on to Bullinger after he had been teaching essentially the same things: "He writes like you teach". So Wierwille was claiming to have come up with the information independently.
2. The change to "with distinction came in one of the other books, JCING or ATDAN...I forget which one.
3. I'd like to see How to Enjoy the Bible to catch the whole context. Did Bullinger mean the same thing when he used those words that Wierwille meant? Wierwille had a habit of misunderstanding and confusing Bullinger's points. I wouldn't be surprised if this was another example.
4. True, most of us figured out what Wierwille meant, but how about "say what you mean and mean what you say"?
Bullinger was more clear than Wierwille on the topic, but it really was much ado about nothing.
I received my copy of PFAL after Wierwille died, and it still had "all without distinction." I cannot speak for later editions. JCING has "all with a distinction." SINCE Wierwille did not consider his works God-breathed, it was never an issue, and "you know what I meant" is a perfectly satisfying answer to me.
One of the keys I am using in working "all without distinction" is I'm searching out ALL the places where these words and similar ones come up in the writings. The "all" issue comes up in different ways in JCNG and in GMWD. Plus I'm slowly working all the places where Dr used the word "exception" and where he used "distinction."
Another key....you might want to try, Mike........"search the scriptures whether those things are so"...........think outside the pfal box.
skyrider: by searching Wierwille's works, Mike thinks he IS searching the scriptures.
I cannot think of a bigger waste of time than ferreting out the uses of exception and distinction in the works of VPW to determine why he made what any third grader can tell you was a stupid mistake.
Correction: I CAN think of a bigger waste of time than ferreting out the uses of exception and distinction in the works of VPW to determine why he made what any third grader can tell you was a stupid mistake.
A bigger waste of time than ferreting out the uses of exception and distinction in the works of VPW to determine why he made what any third grader can tell you was a stupid mistake would be convincing Mike that there's no bigger waste of time than ferreting out the uses of exception and distinction in the works of VPW to determine why he made what any third grader can tell you was a stupid mistake.
I believe I heard VPW in a private Corps sharing one night say something to this effect:
"When he discovered Bullingers works he stayed up all night reading it because he found someone whose research agreed exactly with what he had previously come up with."
Though it may not have been stated implicitly, it was definitely implied that he came up with it independently of Bullinger.
I do not believe it. I believe Bullingers works were copied and implemented into PFAL.
In earlier days of TWI the general thinking and implications across the population of "older" grads was that God taught "The Doctor" the same things that Bullinger came up with, BEFORE he even discovered Bullinger.
Recommended Posts
Ham
Actually, it was a direct copy out of Bullinger's how to enjoy the bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob
VP taught in pfal that "all" is either:
1) All without exception
2) All without distinction
Later, it was changed to:
1) All without exception
2) All with distinction
because the initial definitions were obviously stupid, being identical in meaning.
The second form of "all" is stupid also, since the context tells you what "all" is referencing, and "all" means "all", not "all except...".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outandabout
That's because he made a boo boo in PFAL and wouldn't correct it forever. It just never made any sense to me the way it was taught in PFAL. I got what he was trying to say but not how he said it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yanagisawa
PFAL was God breathed. The word "boo boo" and PFAL cannot exist in the same sentence. Any perceived errors lie in your understanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Gawd, I'm in a goofy position on this one.
I don't think it was an error per se, just a convoluted way of trying to communicate something.
The way the teaching went, IIRC, was that the word "all" could be used in two different ways.
In either case it's going to be an inclusive word encompassing everything thing within it's supposed category.
Hence it could mean "all" without any exceptions whatsoever, or "all" within a certain category without any distinction in that category.
Yes, it's a ridiculous bit of hairsplitting designed to paper over the fact that sometimes words are used with something less than "a mathematical exactness and a scientific precision" in the Holy Writ. But I think it gives us a little insight into the mind of the Vickster. Things didn't work real well in there, from what I can tell...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
yana
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
and geo. "But I think it gives us a little insight into the mind of the Vickster. Things didn't work real well in there, from what I can tell... "
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
--
one more thing, i'm saving the biggest laugh for me, who sat through that stupid class to listen to that ALL teaching over and over and over
ohmygod !!!!!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Okay........following Hammer's point, I pulled out Bullinger's work How to enjoy the Bible.
p. 109......."This is the key to the understanding of those many passages where the words all and every and world are used in the New Testament. All must mean one of two things: either 'all without exception' or 'all without distinction;' and it is in this latter sense it is constantly used in contrast with the one nation of Israel." (bottom of page)
Now.....this forum is NOT the doctrinal forum.....and I have no intention of quibbling over the meaning and nuances and all that.
BUT.....WHAT I DO FIND INTERESTING TO NOTE.....is that in twi, we were always taught that vpw came up with "his research" INDEPENDENT of Bullinger. God showed vpw these things.....and he taught them (in pfal 68).
Later.....it seems that even vpw was confused on this issue and revamped what he "borrowed" from Bullinger. Granted, to vpw's credit....he changed his teaching on this "biblical key to research."
Yet....to this day, the foundational keys in pfal are still confusing for many.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
skyrider, it's really easy to know which key to use when you decide what point you're trying to prove.
;)-->
When I would ask them about teaching us to do something that came from the wrong administration, they would throw back the "used before."
When I would ask about something being wrong based on the "used before" key, they would say that I wasn't looking at the whole context.
You ignore the other keys if they don't support what you're trying to prove. It's not that hard once you get used to it.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
OMYGOD!
It's even worse than I thought! Not only was the teaching a convoluted, indecipherable, confusing bit of tripe, but VPW plagiarized that as well!
Geeze Pete, you'd think if he was going to steal something, he'd steal something worthwhile!
After having read "Numbers in Scripture" and other such twaddle, I'm fairly convinced that Bullinger was almost as whacked as Wierwille.
"Anal-retentive" doesn't begin to say it. And the quote from "How to Enjoy the Bible" does nothing to change my opinion. Ouch!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Geo, a Wierwille apologist.
RFMAO!!!!
Wierwille changed it publically at the live class, PFAL '77. He said it in a "the research department made me say this, but you know what I meant, dontcha" kind of way.
Wouldn't it have made the point simpler just to say, "All without exception, all with exception?"
Did they manage to edit out every time he said "out" in the later editions of PFAL? And how is Mike gonna justify Wierwille's using it one way for all those years, then changing the "revelation?"
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yanagisawa
Geo
As you ranted about Bullinger I was remembering those step diagrams illustrating the "perfect design" of every little freakin' word.
A.
1.
2.
3.
3.
2.
1.
etc.......
Can you imagine a research summit with E W Bullinger and Jaques Derrida?
Nothing left but fur and bones.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
shazdancer,
This subject has come up several times here, AND I've been working it for a couple of years now. Anyone can operate the Advanced Search function under the "FIND" button to see what I've handled so far.
I do remember the pregnant pause in Dr's delivery of that phrase in PFAL '77. He did change it there, but then again, that class mysteriously disappeared from sight in many significant ways, as I've noted in my first post in the "Masters of the Word-..." thread.
I do NOT remember him saying anything to the effect that the Research Department made him say it that way in the PFAL'77 class itself, though. Is your memory of him saying that one that places it within the class, or on it's periphery, like backstage, or at lunch? You have proved to me your having a memory better than most, so I'm very interested in your answer to this question.
***
Again, in my first post in the "Masters of the Word-..." thread I note that at lunch just days before the start of that '77 class Dr indicated that he had been arm twisted to designate that class as the replacement for the '67 film class. In that dramatic lunch meeting he pulled the plug on those plans, though.
It seems that his changing of his handling of "all" in PFAL'77 was one where the arm twisting was successful, but Dr went ahead after the class and yanked it from circulation.
***
This reminds me of another place where arm twisting got Dr doubting his own original revelations by those doubters with which he was surrounded. In his last live teaching of PFAL at Gunnison he re-arraigned his teaching of Eli Eli, OR SO I'M TOLD.
In recent years I've consulted with one TB, formerly of the Research Department. He went on to study the Aramaic and found abundant documention for the original '67 approach that Llamsa and Dr used. He will someday write it up. Another reseacher I'm in touch with has debunked the doubts that arose concerning the interogative nature of the "Eli Eli" cry. Both of these men have seen that the Research Department got on some sloppy trails toward the end of Dr's life.
***
The PFAL book was changed in minor ways over the years to correct typos and a few other things, and this is reflected in the printing designations placed in the opening pages. HOWEVER, neither the "all without distinction" nor "Eli Eli" were altered.
One of the keys I am using in working "all without distinction" is I'm searching out ALL the places where these words and similar ones come up in the writings. The "all" issue comes up in different ways in JCNG and in GMWD. Plus I'm slowly working all the places where Dr used the word "exception" and where he used "distinction."
This other key is one I insist on using: go slow. These matters are way too important to shoot from the hip impulsively.
I'm also working the OTHER places where Bullinger brings it up besides in "How to Enjoy the Bible."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oldiesman,
You're absolutely right. Dr often told us he collected it from places God guided him to.
Those grads who fell into the hero worship mode regarding Dr, but who never seriously worked the material he taught, were easily seduced and set up to believe he came up with it all, like a divine dictation, or that he researched it all out from scratch, whatever that means.
Those who bought the hero image are the ones most bitterly disappointed when he fell short of their expectations. Those who worked the material were properly impressed back then and will be even more impressed when they work it again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
1. Wierwille mentions in the PFAL video that Dr. Higgins turned him on to Bullinger after he had been teaching essentially the same things: "He writes like you teach". So Wierwille was claiming to have come up with the information independently.
2. The change to "with distinction came in one of the other books, JCING or ATDAN...I forget which one.
3. I'd like to see How to Enjoy the Bible to catch the whole context. Did Bullinger mean the same thing when he used those words that Wierwille meant? Wierwille had a habit of misunderstanding and confusing Bullinger's points. I wouldn't be surprised if this was another example.
4. True, most of us figured out what Wierwille meant, but how about "say what you mean and mean what you say"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Bullinger was more clear than Wierwille on the topic, but it really was much ado about nothing.
I received my copy of PFAL after Wierwille died, and it still had "all without distinction." I cannot speak for later editions. JCING has "all with a distinction." SINCE Wierwille did not consider his works God-breathed, it was never an issue, and "you know what I meant" is a perfectly satisfying answer to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i'm sorry, mike, you know i think you're a good guy, but i can't even begin to imagine researching those words
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Another key....you might want to try, Mike........"search the scriptures whether those things are so"...........think outside the pfal box.
Just trying to help
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
skyrider: by searching Wierwille's works, Mike thinks he IS searching the scriptures.
I cannot think of a bigger waste of time than ferreting out the uses of exception and distinction in the works of VPW to determine why he made what any third grader can tell you was a stupid mistake.
Correction: I CAN think of a bigger waste of time than ferreting out the uses of exception and distinction in the works of VPW to determine why he made what any third grader can tell you was a stupid mistake.
A bigger waste of time than ferreting out the uses of exception and distinction in the works of VPW to determine why he made what any third grader can tell you was a stupid mistake would be convincing Mike that there's no bigger waste of time than ferreting out the uses of exception and distinction in the works of VPW to determine why he made what any third grader can tell you was a stupid mistake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Peee Pul.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Mike,
VP DID say the research department had him change the "without" to "with" He said it made sense to him the other way.
The fact that he copied it word for word from Bullinger makes his plagiarism, All WITHOUT Exception, doesn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Am I gonna need a new ferret for this Raf?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I think of poor Mike sitting there hour after hour..."working" Wierwille's stupid class...
-->
It's like administering CPR to someone who's been dead for 2 days. His intentions are good, but a waste of time nevertheless.
Mike...why doncha just join a splinter group? You'd have plenty of miserable comforters to "work the werd" with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
I believe I heard VPW in a private Corps sharing one night say something to this effect:
"When he discovered Bullingers works he stayed up all night reading it because he found someone whose research agreed exactly with what he had previously come up with."
Though it may not have been stated implicitly, it was definitely implied that he came up with it independently of Bullinger.
I do not believe it. I believe Bullingers works were copied and implemented into PFAL.
In earlier days of TWI the general thinking and implications across the population of "older" grads was that God taught "The Doctor" the same things that Bullinger came up with, BEFORE he even discovered Bullinger.
Hogwash!
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.