Who told you that Mike? All of the Way PFAL tapes and films carried the same copyright notice on them, to "The Way Inc." or "The Way International". Check your sources. The notice I quoted above is from the print syllabus, front page, which were from the first syllabuses printed for the class in 67.
There are a lot of myths that circulate amongst old grads, second hand stories that VPW said this or that to so and so. Invoking copyright didn't start in the 70's, 80's or 90's.
As to Deut. 29:29, if that were the case then we would never need to invoke copyright. Look at your statement as to that myth of why it was copywritten - that being the case it would be within the right of anyone to use any material in PFAL in whole or in part or in fact to reproduce it, change a few parts to reflect what was considered to need correcting and reissue it under the same name if they wanted to. It belongs to God, the material isn't VPW's or "The Way Inc". Everyone would have the right to do that amd to prevent someone from doing so would contradict Deut. 29:29 then.
Backing up to plagarism, the definition, again:
Plagiarism is the act of copyright infringement, that is, using another person's work without giving credit or obtaining permission. It is tantamount to stealing.
-----
Giving credit or obtaining permission. It may be that VPW knew that approaching B.G. Leonard directly for permission about the RTHST sections of the last segments, he would be denied and so he went ahead and did it anyway. He could have made the same case you're making to do that - "it's God's Word, B.G. doesn't own it, I don't have to ask him or get permission". But leaving that as untended business wouldn't settle the issue.
Giving credit is basic to copyright law, it's simple, basic and honest. I believe it lines up quite well with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Don't take what's not yours. Jesus taught to give to Caesar's what's his and to God what's His. He didn't teach do whatever you damned well please if it suits you. Life has order. You have the opportunity to live peacably with all men, take it.
Copyright law goes back to the 1790's in the U.S. The purpose was to recognize and protect the freedom to express ideas and information. In a sense it recognizes these as "inalienable rights" of the individual, the recognition of ownership at the time of creation. In other words it attempts to formalize something that is believed to already be in force.
In effect a person doesn't have to have formal registration to have those rights, "by rights" they have them already. Infringement can happen simply if previous material existed. In reality it recognizes an honor system by restating in law what should already happen amongst honest people - Credit and accounting be made for the work of another by not claiming or giving the appearance that it's your own. The most universal application of this recognizes that to be the most honest, you cite sources and give credit when in doubt or if there is any question. You err on the side of caution.
What this has to do with the content of PFAL is substantial. One view says "it's still God's Word so it doesn't matter". Another view could say that given the law it would be easy for a person to take SOME of another's work, parts of it and change it just enough so that it can't be challenged. Taking small portions could pass, changing a word, a term. Taking a phrase and using it in your own material.
It has a lot to do with respect too. If a person doesn't respect a persons rights they can see, will they respect a Gods instructions who they can't see?
I remember hearing in the early 80's that the reason the film class was FINALLY copyrighted was so that someone else would not be able to do it, and thereafter deprive us of the right to run it.
[Even the most cursory view of copyright laws should have made it clear the film was already covered by copyright. I don't know if they were that stupid back then, but we've been discussing copyright for MONTHS, and you STILL don't understand how it works. ]
A less vivid memory points to the reason it hadn't been done earlier was the cost. I can infer that the copyrighting of the books was easier and done earlier for the same reason as my vivid memory of the film class getting copyrighted.
***
def59,
Have you thought of the possibility that Dr's memory of the exact dates of his degrees may have been inaccurate? The reason I quoted that passage was to show that WW's memory of the tape was not so vivid.
Have you thought of the possibility that Dr was not bragging about the reverse order of those degrees, but that it just happened that way by a quirk? It just happened that in that text I posted I bold fonted the words "it just happened" that Dr spoke just so that those skim reading it might be more likely to happen across them. But it just happened that you missed them. Maybe he wasn't bragging.
Another point is that I don't have the time nor the interest to check into, this being a likely blind alley, but might there be a difference between the dates an institution grants a degree and the individual receiving it? I don't know but I don't care. This is moving far away from my area of interest, and more into the area What the Hay identified as self aggrandizement. I want to get my relationship with the Father cooking bigtime, not play detective bigtime with a lot of people who have little better to do than feel big as they play down the man who taught me that God is good.
I choose to "beg off" this investigation. You can feel free to chase it off a cliff if you want to. How are you going to check the accuracy of that website's info you posted? Are you of the mind that if you see it on TV or on the Internet it must be true? How are you going to verify that website's info? Fly to the degree granting institution itself? What if you hold in your hands the records themselves? How do you know THEY are true?
[in a court of law, that would hold up. If it supported Mike's thesis, he would support it. Since it does not, he denounces it and hides behind sophistry. Yawn. ]
Can institutions make honest mistakes? I took the AC in 1975, yet TWI's records show that I did not. Their records are simply wrong. What does it all prove in chasing all this down? Gads! It reminds me of how HCW rammed WWs words back in his face about that photo of India.
It's all a colossal waste of time. The same time could be much better spent reading God's Word, even an approximation like KJV! How's YOUR relationship with the Father lately? If it's all that good, have you turned anyone else on to Him lately? Maybe you could witness to the records custodians at Princeton or Chicago.
[surely we can find a better use of our time than proving vpw lied to us....]
***
Raf,
Where do you get your impression of plagiarism being plain wrong? From the world or from the Word?
[Where do you get your impression that the laws of the world, the letter and intent of the laws, are to be disregarded by Christians. "Submit yourself to every ordnance of man for man's sake.." ]
I get my understanding of intellectual ownership from Deut. 29:29, where do you get yours?
[No-otherwise you'd say vpw was inconsistent to post a copyright notice in his own works. You get your ideas by assuming wierwille was correct, then redefine the rules to accomodate that.]
(snip)
***
I reserve the right to not waste my time in what I perceive as wild goose chases. If I didn't the adversary could distract me forever. I choose to beg off some challenges, especially ones that bore me.
[Especially when they'd result in me being spanked with a paddle.]
quote:I get my understanding of intellectual ownership from Deut. 29:29, where do you get yours?
[No-otherwise you'd say vpw was inconsistent to post a copyright notice in his own works. You get your ideas by assuming wierwille was correct, then redefine the rules to accomodate that.]
Wordwolf, it's so obvious isn't it, but Mike steers around it. In my example of 1968, VPW notes copyright and states nothing can be reproduced without permission. That statement has NOTHING to do with anything about someone copyrighting it and preventing the Way from running it. It has to do with keeping anyone else from reproducing it and using it, and who "owns" it.
Yes sir, I most certainly GET my "ideas by assuming wierwille was correct." I'd call it a postulate, my assumption that PFAL is correct. Someone told it to me and I simply believed it.
Well, maybe it wasn't so simple. There was 27 years of prior hearing that set me up to believe this.
However this "getting" does not necessarily follow from an ad hoc definition. There are other ways of "getting" ideas than by definition. Indeed, my ideas follow from simple observation and applying priciples of God's Word after that postulate is firmly in place.
I'm willing to bet my life that Dr had permission from the author....... that is to say, Dr HAD PERMISSION from the Author, from the Real Author, Who is God.
I see that, if, IF, IF the written form of PFAL is God-breathed, then it all fits perfectly.
If it is NOT God-breathed then I'm in a pickle.
I get my confidence to bet my life from all that I see when I thoroughly think through these matters keeping in mind the postulate that PFAL is indeed God-breathed. Those who insist that they thought through the other side of this plagiarism issue never did think it through with this postulate in mind, nor were any other of the "issues" thought through keeping PFAL's God breathed status in mind. Those who lean on their puny proofs, pro or con, are doomed. The flesh spoutings of those who can't hear God's vote on whether He breathed PFAL will come to nought.
***
I said that if PFAL is NOT God-breathed then I'm in a pickle. Actually, if it is not God-breathed then said pickle is nothing compared to the dire dilemma we ALL face, because in this scenario NOTHING is God-breathed in this world.
Those who insist that the original manuscripts that their KJV is derived from are Authoritative have yet to place a hard copy of those originals on my Table of Challenge.
Even if they could, they'd have to augment it with an Authoritative translation/version if it were to do any good for most of us. One more remote alternative to this ancient language/culture problem would be to place an Authoritative ancient languages textbook covering the range of beginning student to advanced PhD, along with a similarly ranged Authoritative orientalism culture/history text. But in this remote semi-solution most of us would not have the time/brains to do it all for ourselves, and we'd need an Authoritative Teacher to do most of that work for us.
I'm sure lots of wannabe Authoritative Teachers would apply for the job, but I'm not so sure anyone here can come up with the above mentioned texts so we peons can do an adequate screening.
I know that these wannabe Authoritative Teachers are right now clamoring for the job WITHOUT the Authoritative texts placed on my Table of Challenge, insisting that they themselves are authoritative enough already to derive the necessary texts from which they can teach us. They think that the abstract originals plus their expertise is enough for us peons. What the Hay nailed it with his pointing out their self aggrandizement motivations.
So I don't buy it.
I see no viable option to PFAL on My table of Challenge. These wannabe teachers haven't earned my respect, and they plummet in that regard further daily.
I bet my life it's all done for us by God in a simple set of books, and the Authoritative Teacher has come and gone before any of us knew what happened. God covered for his flesh inadequacies and sin so that the Authoritative texts could be printed and distributed around the globe long before we had an inkling that we should screen out the teacher God had selected.
Like I said to Abigail at beginning of my proPFAL-General thread, if it's not all in PFAL then where is it? My Table of Challenge is still lacking a serious contender for that hard copy of the Word of God. My study table is stocked.
quote:If it is NOT God-breathed then I'm in a pickle.
SINCE it is not God-breathed, then you are in a pickle. Wierwille was a liar (on this point), and you are a sycophantic apologist without the personal integrity to see it.
Your postulate has been demonstrated false so many times it's not even funny. Your refusal to admit it just makes this frustrating or amusing, depending on my mood during a particular day.
My whole approach insists that if it is true it will follow its own proofs that it is what you claim it to be. SINCE it does not, I reject your thesis. If you were honest, you would too. But something happened in your head that led you away from God to worshipping the brass serpent. It's a crying shame. You're missing out on so much by focusing on a broken cistern.
Keep drinking your formula. Someday you'll grow up.
If PFAL is the god-breathed Word of God we have to accept several things in regard to the plagiarism issue:
1. That some sections of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, especially the earlier editions, are word-for-word identical to passages from the works of J.E. Stiles.
2. That Wierwille was a graduate of B.G. Leonard's Gifts of the Spirit class and that the earliest versions of PFAL were Leonard's class in most important aspects.
3. The words of other authors found their way into Wierwille's works without attribution. (By "attribution" I do not mean meantioning that Wierwille had learned from or studied with the original author, but that he specifically said that the words were quoted from or adapted from the author)
Again, if PFAL is revelation from God, then God had to do one or more of several things:
A. Give Vic revelation to write certain things, not telling him that they were already written by others.
B. Give Vic revelation to write certain things, telling him that they were already written by others.
C. Direct Vic to copy from other authors
I think that the God being described here is a pretty puny one. He tells his earthly representative to break the law, which he already directs people not to do in the previous god-breathed "Word". He isn't smart enough to put these concepts into fresh words, but has to copy them from an inferior author.
Despite the myth that Wierwille was already teaching before he ever read Bullinger, I believe that he did indeed read Bullinger, but didn't always read him thoroughly or understand his point.
In The Word's Way chapter "The Lord's Brethren" Wierwille discusses several denominational beliefs about Jesus' brothers. One being that they were Joseph's sons from a previous marriage. He rebuts this idea by saying that the existance of older brothers would have invalidated Jesus' claim to the throne of David. This is mentioned in one of Bullinger's appendices to the Companion Bible.
Bullinger backs this up by showing that Joseph was the heir of David, and that it is his geneology in Matthew. Mary's is in Luke. If Joseph was in the royal line, then his older sons would be considered heirs before Jesus. Makes sense.
EXCEPT that Wierwille's take on the geneologies was opposite from Bullinger's! He believed that Matthew contained MARY's geneology and that Luke contained Joseph's.
If Wierwille's teaching on the genelogies was correct then Joseph having older sons from a previous marriage would have irrelevant to Jesus being heir to the throne of David.
He cut and pasted from Bullinger without really understanding IMHO. (Another Actual Error?)
I don't know what it's called Mike, but your pickles are in a jar of your own making. :D--> That's not the only way to approach PFAL. Making it a god breathed reissue of the Word of God in the bible because the bible is in a form and state you don't like or can't deal with isn't the only option.
This "postulate" you cite isn't new, it's just not backed up by any of the existing evidence of PFAL itself of VPW himself. It's an after the fact reinvention of known facts and history. You're guessing and using bits and pieces of texts and statements to back that up. Next you'll be saying "I haven't found a text to back this statement up, but if I'm right we will someday. If I'm not, our whole Reissued Word will fall to pieces!" I'm not interesting in you being right, I have no vested return in that, you do.
Another direction would be to view it as it was intended, a teaching vehicle to provide what VPW states - keys and principles to help unlock the bible and allow us to undertand it better. Whether it does that or not is a matter for each person that examines it to evaluate.
If you take that intention you're simply taking what VPW himself clearly stated, using one of the keys he taught - interpret the unclear or difficult verses or subjects in light of the clear material. And there is clear material as to what VPW intended PFAL to be, right in PFAL.
When VPW makes clear statements as to what he intended PFAL to be, in clear English, those should be your marking posts. When you read or hear other parts of PFAL that talk about the content you then know what to compare it to and what direction to augment your understanding.
Nowhere in PFAL does VPW say:
"And I want this class to be for you, the student, the Word of God reissued. The bible once given has been subject to such change it is no longer a reliable copy of God's original intentions so we today wander to and fro at the whims of every bible teacher or instructor. But in this class on Power for Abundant Living you will receive a new form and format to understand God's will for you sir, in this day and time and in a manner in which you can clearly read and learn. Glory! What a day and a time to live, that we can work this New Word with confidence and boldness and finally now come to that place that know that we know that we know, beyond the shadow of a doubt! that we hold in our hands that New and Reissued Word of God - this class on Power...for Abundant Living!"
[cut to black, load segment 5]
If a person reads or listens to what is said, it's pretty simple. It gets complicated and requires continual explanation and interpretation to go into this reissued direction. That's obvious by the use of this fall-back last resort logic of "well, well....! if it isn't, then doggonit, I'm in a real pickle!" No you're not. The only pickles come from the position you've put yourself in to Mike. Go to the whole burger and leave the condiments out of it, they're matters of personal taste.
Where does it say in your accepted canon, the text that you might like to try and get onto the Table of Challenge worthily, that God has to say anything according to yor specifications?
Actually I have found 90 places, all hidden in one way of another, where Dr says "Thus saith the Lord" in my Table of Challenge stack.
Why hidden? So that this debate would occur AFTER the books were printed and distributed around the globe.
Neither you, NOR I, nor any grad I know of, would have helped print and distribute those books had Dr said it for God the way you specify.
We weren't ready spiritually to hear it that way, and it's still a challenge for you to accept it now. Simple obedience to Dr's final instrctions yielded the 90 references for me. It will for you too.
Please Mike, respectfully, don't tell me what I would or would not have done.
I'm not placing any criteria on God. I'm simply saying take PFAL's content for what it says of itself. "thus said the Lord" doesn't qualify it for what you've said. I've read that in PFAL too. On face value I don't believe it indicates what you say it does.
No offense Mike but you're just not a reliable source of input and perspective on PFAL. That's why I'm posting to this thread and not the other one. Your Table of Challenge thing has been discussed interminably and it's a non-issue for me at this point. Go back and read what I've responded to previously to it. I'm not interested in revisiting it.
On the plagiarism topic it's all been discussed before too and I think this thread thus far clearly documents most of the points to be considered. It's up to each person to decide what direction they want to go in, there's enough information here to at least get a person started on considering where it stands.
I'm talking about God telling US the answer to your question of "...who's to say?"
I know what you meant, Mike.
Here's the thing: where Bullinger disagrees with Wierwille, I go to the Bible to determine who's right. The tattered remnants you so belittle, remember? Why? Because both Bullinger and Wierwille recognize the Bible as authoritative over their own works, whereas you don't.
Yeah, I know all your comebacks. Save them for someone who gives a flying fig.
I like and admire your ability to think critically and to reason, even though it IS only reason (BTMS p.23 bottom).
You wrote with GREAT reasoning:
"A. Give Vic revelation to write certain things, not telling him that they were already written by others.
"B. Give Vic revelation to write certain things, telling him that they were already written by others [may I add "by revelation" here?).
"C. Direct Vic to copy from other authors"
These three possibilities have gotten years of pondering time from me, but for simplicity's sake I could only bring myself to mentioning to (B.) even though (C.) definitely occurs every time Dr quotes a KJV verse.
So you think my God would be small to use small to use (A.)??? Did you know that similar things happen in science from time to time. It happens so much that one maverick scientist (still somewhat officially accepted though) named Rupert Sheldrake has come up with a fundamental theory to describe the phenomenon.
Why would a magnanimous God use (A.) from time to time? To give Dr great confirmation that he was on the right track as Dr would find the previous texts, and that it was worth while to ignore the jeers and protests as he departed radically from tradition. We might call it the Higgins/Bullinger effect.
I already know from my KJV that in the OT that this same magnanimous God often employed techniques that would not pass the kinds of tests your great reasoning powers might insist on, as well as mine, and as well as theology in general.
I was issuing a "what if" statement and citing no authority to do so, so I implied that I was issuing an "In my opinion, neither you, nor I , nor..." kind of statement, and not one of any definiteness.
To satisfy you I will add "IMO" next time I say that of you.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
22
23
55
Popular Days
Jan 22
41
Jan 24
17
Feb 1
16
Jan 31
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 22 posts
def59 22 posts
WordWolf 23 posts
Mike 55 posts
Popular Days
Jan 22 2005
41 posts
Jan 24 2005
17 posts
Feb 1 2005
16 posts
Jan 31 2005
14 posts
socks
Who told you that Mike? All of the Way PFAL tapes and films carried the same copyright notice on them, to "The Way Inc." or "The Way International". Check your sources. The notice I quoted above is from the print syllabus, front page, which were from the first syllabuses printed for the class in 67.
There are a lot of myths that circulate amongst old grads, second hand stories that VPW said this or that to so and so. Invoking copyright didn't start in the 70's, 80's or 90's.
As to Deut. 29:29, if that were the case then we would never need to invoke copyright. Look at your statement as to that myth of why it was copywritten - that being the case it would be within the right of anyone to use any material in PFAL in whole or in part or in fact to reproduce it, change a few parts to reflect what was considered to need correcting and reissue it under the same name if they wanted to. It belongs to God, the material isn't VPW's or "The Way Inc". Everyone would have the right to do that amd to prevent someone from doing so would contradict Deut. 29:29 then.
Backing up to plagarism, the definition, again:
Plagiarism is the act of copyright infringement, that is, using another person's work without giving credit or obtaining permission. It is tantamount to stealing.
-----
Giving credit or obtaining permission. It may be that VPW knew that approaching B.G. Leonard directly for permission about the RTHST sections of the last segments, he would be denied and so he went ahead and did it anyway. He could have made the same case you're making to do that - "it's God's Word, B.G. doesn't own it, I don't have to ask him or get permission". But leaving that as untended business wouldn't settle the issue.
Giving credit is basic to copyright law, it's simple, basic and honest. I believe it lines up quite well with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Don't take what's not yours. Jesus taught to give to Caesar's what's his and to God what's His. He didn't teach do whatever you damned well please if it suits you. Life has order. You have the opportunity to live peacably with all men, take it.
Copyright law goes back to the 1790's in the U.S. The purpose was to recognize and protect the freedom to express ideas and information. In a sense it recognizes these as "inalienable rights" of the individual, the recognition of ownership at the time of creation. In other words it attempts to formalize something that is believed to already be in force.
In effect a person doesn't have to have formal registration to have those rights, "by rights" they have them already. Infringement can happen simply if previous material existed. In reality it recognizes an honor system by restating in law what should already happen amongst honest people - Credit and accounting be made for the work of another by not claiming or giving the appearance that it's your own. The most universal application of this recognizes that to be the most honest, you cite sources and give credit when in doubt or if there is any question. You err on the side of caution.
What this has to do with the content of PFAL is substantial. One view says "it's still God's Word so it doesn't matter". Another view could say that given the law it would be easy for a person to take SOME of another's work, parts of it and change it just enough so that it can't be challenged. Taking small portions could pass, changing a word, a term. Taking a phrase and using it in your own material.
It has a lot to do with respect too. If a person doesn't respect a persons rights they can see, will they respect a Gods instructions who they can't see?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike in normal font.
[WordWolf in boldface as normal.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Courtesy of Rafael,
some links on how Christians approach plagiarism (unless they're vpw)...
http://www.freshministry.org/articles/plagiarism.html
http://www.belief.net/story/94/story_9413_1.html#cont
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/8844.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
This says it all as to Deut....
Wordwolf, it's so obvious isn't it, but Mike steers around it. In my example of 1968, VPW notes copyright and states nothing can be reproduced without permission. That statement has NOTHING to do with anything about someone copyrighting it and preventing the Way from running it. It has to do with keeping anyone else from reproducing it and using it, and who "owns" it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes sir, I most certainly GET my "ideas by assuming wierwille was correct." I'd call it a postulate, my assumption that PFAL is correct. Someone told it to me and I simply believed it.
Well, maybe it wasn't so simple. There was 27 years of prior hearing that set me up to believe this.
However this "getting" does not necessarily follow from an ad hoc definition. There are other ways of "getting" ideas than by definition. Indeed, my ideas follow from simple observation and applying priciples of God's Word after that postulate is firmly in place.
I'm willing to bet my life that Dr had permission from the author....... that is to say, Dr HAD PERMISSION from the Author, from the Real Author, Who is God.
I see that, if, IF, IF the written form of PFAL is God-breathed, then it all fits perfectly.
If it is NOT God-breathed then I'm in a pickle.
I get my confidence to bet my life from all that I see when I thoroughly think through these matters keeping in mind the postulate that PFAL is indeed God-breathed. Those who insist that they thought through the other side of this plagiarism issue never did think it through with this postulate in mind, nor were any other of the "issues" thought through keeping PFAL's God breathed status in mind. Those who lean on their puny proofs, pro or con, are doomed. The flesh spoutings of those who can't hear God's vote on whether He breathed PFAL will come to nought.
***
I said that if PFAL is NOT God-breathed then I'm in a pickle. Actually, if it is not God-breathed then said pickle is nothing compared to the dire dilemma we ALL face, because in this scenario NOTHING is God-breathed in this world.
Those who insist that the original manuscripts that their KJV is derived from are Authoritative have yet to place a hard copy of those originals on my Table of Challenge.
Even if they could, they'd have to augment it with an Authoritative translation/version if it were to do any good for most of us. One more remote alternative to this ancient language/culture problem would be to place an Authoritative ancient languages textbook covering the range of beginning student to advanced PhD, along with a similarly ranged Authoritative orientalism culture/history text. But in this remote semi-solution most of us would not have the time/brains to do it all for ourselves, and we'd need an Authoritative Teacher to do most of that work for us.
I'm sure lots of wannabe Authoritative Teachers would apply for the job, but I'm not so sure anyone here can come up with the above mentioned texts so we peons can do an adequate screening.
I know that these wannabe Authoritative Teachers are right now clamoring for the job WITHOUT the Authoritative texts placed on my Table of Challenge, insisting that they themselves are authoritative enough already to derive the necessary texts from which they can teach us. They think that the abstract originals plus their expertise is enough for us peons. What the Hay nailed it with his pointing out their self aggrandizement motivations.
So I don't buy it.
I see no viable option to PFAL on My table of Challenge. These wannabe teachers haven't earned my respect, and they plummet in that regard further daily.
I bet my life it's all done for us by God in a simple set of books, and the Authoritative Teacher has come and gone before any of us knew what happened. God covered for his flesh inadequacies and sin so that the Authoritative texts could be printed and distributed around the globe long before we had an inkling that we should screen out the teacher God had selected.
Like I said to Abigail at beginning of my proPFAL-General thread, if it's not all in PFAL then where is it? My Table of Challenge is still lacking a serious contender for that hard copy of the Word of God. My study table is stocked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
SINCE it is not God-breathed, then you are in a pickle. Wierwille was a liar (on this point), and you are a sycophantic apologist without the personal integrity to see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You have STILL have not thought it through with the postulate in mind. This is an unturned stone your ego can't allow to be looked under.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Has anyone thought through the scenario of the humble pie eating contest that should result IF this postulate is true?
I'll bet this thinking through is too scary to carry out... to ego threating to ever entertain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Your postulate has been demonstrated false so many times it's not even funny. Your refusal to admit it just makes this frustrating or amusing, depending on my mood during a particular day.
MY ego? You've got to be kidding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It always demonstrates false because your whole approach insists on it being false to begin with.
Let me admit this: if I were to drop the postulate, then I'd see that you are correct, from human logic.
But if you adopt the postulate, then you'd see that it is correct, from spiritual revelation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Liar, again.
My whole approach insists that if it is true it will follow its own proofs that it is what you claim it to be. SINCE it does not, I reject your thesis. If you were honest, you would too. But something happened in your head that led you away from God to worshipping the brass serpent. It's a crying shame. You're missing out on so much by focusing on a broken cistern.
Keep drinking your formula. Someday you'll grow up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
If PFAL is the god-breathed Word of God we have to accept several things in regard to the plagiarism issue:
1. That some sections of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, especially the earlier editions, are word-for-word identical to passages from the works of J.E. Stiles.
2. That Wierwille was a graduate of B.G. Leonard's Gifts of the Spirit class and that the earliest versions of PFAL were Leonard's class in most important aspects.
3. The words of other authors found their way into Wierwille's works without attribution. (By "attribution" I do not mean meantioning that Wierwille had learned from or studied with the original author, but that he specifically said that the words were quoted from or adapted from the author)
Again, if PFAL is revelation from God, then God had to do one or more of several things:
A. Give Vic revelation to write certain things, not telling him that they were already written by others.
B. Give Vic revelation to write certain things, telling him that they were already written by others.
C. Direct Vic to copy from other authors
I think that the God being described here is a pretty puny one. He tells his earthly representative to break the law, which he already directs people not to do in the previous god-breathed "Word". He isn't smart enough to put these concepts into fresh words, but has to copy them from an inferior author.
Brilliant!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Despite the myth that Wierwille was already teaching before he ever read Bullinger, I believe that he did indeed read Bullinger, but didn't always read him thoroughly or understand his point.
In The Word's Way chapter "The Lord's Brethren" Wierwille discusses several denominational beliefs about Jesus' brothers. One being that they were Joseph's sons from a previous marriage. He rebuts this idea by saying that the existance of older brothers would have invalidated Jesus' claim to the throne of David. This is mentioned in one of Bullinger's appendices to the Companion Bible.
Bullinger backs this up by showing that Joseph was the heir of David, and that it is his geneology in Matthew. Mary's is in Luke. If Joseph was in the royal line, then his older sons would be considered heirs before Jesus. Makes sense.
EXCEPT that Wierwille's take on the geneologies was opposite from Bullinger's! He believed that Matthew contained MARY's geneology and that Luke contained Joseph's.
If Wierwille's teaching on the genelogies was correct then Joseph having older sons from a previous marriage would have irrelevant to Jesus being heir to the throne of David.
He cut and pasted from Bullinger without really understanding IMHO. (Another Actual Error?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Interpretational. Who's to say either was right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I don't know what it's called Mike, but your pickles are in a jar of your own making.
:D--> That's not the only way to approach PFAL. Making it a god breathed reissue of the Word of God in the bible because the bible is in a form and state you don't like or can't deal with isn't the only option.
This "postulate" you cite isn't new, it's just not backed up by any of the existing evidence of PFAL itself of VPW himself. It's an after the fact reinvention of known facts and history. You're guessing and using bits and pieces of texts and statements to back that up. Next you'll be saying "I haven't found a text to back this statement up, but if I'm right we will someday. If I'm not, our whole Reissued Word will fall to pieces!" I'm not interesting in you being right, I have no vested return in that, you do.
Another direction would be to view it as it was intended, a teaching vehicle to provide what VPW states - keys and principles to help unlock the bible and allow us to undertand it better. Whether it does that or not is a matter for each person that examines it to evaluate.
If you take that intention you're simply taking what VPW himself clearly stated, using one of the keys he taught - interpret the unclear or difficult verses or subjects in light of the clear material. And there is clear material as to what VPW intended PFAL to be, right in PFAL.
When VPW makes clear statements as to what he intended PFAL to be, in clear English, those should be your marking posts. When you read or hear other parts of PFAL that talk about the content you then know what to compare it to and what direction to augment your understanding.
Nowhere in PFAL does VPW say:
"And I want this class to be for you, the student, the Word of God reissued. The bible once given has been subject to such change it is no longer a reliable copy of God's original intentions so we today wander to and fro at the whims of every bible teacher or instructor. But in this class on Power for Abundant Living you will receive a new form and format to understand God's will for you sir, in this day and time and in a manner in which you can clearly read and learn. Glory! What a day and a time to live, that we can work this New Word with confidence and boldness and finally now come to that place that know that we know that we know, beyond the shadow of a doubt! that we hold in our hands that New and Reissued Word of God - this class on Power...for Abundant Living!"
[cut to black, load segment 5]
If a person reads or listens to what is said, it's pretty simple. It gets complicated and requires continual explanation and interpretation to go into this reissued direction. That's obvious by the use of this fall-back last resort logic of "well, well....! if it isn't, then doggonit, I'm in a real pickle!" No you're not. The only pickles come from the position you've put yourself in to Mike. Go to the whole burger and leave the condiments out of it, they're matters of personal taste.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf wrote: "Interpretational. Who's to say either was right?"
Answer: God can say. But theology doesn't accept revelation... I guess?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
socks,
Where does it say in your accepted canon, the text that you might like to try and get onto the Table of Challenge worthily, that God has to say anything according to yor specifications?
Actually I have found 90 places, all hidden in one way of another, where Dr says "Thus saith the Lord" in my Table of Challenge stack.
Why hidden? So that this debate would occur AFTER the books were printed and distributed around the globe.
Neither you, NOR I, nor any grad I know of, would have helped print and distribute those books had Dr said it for God the way you specify.
We weren't ready spiritually to hear it that way, and it's still a challenge for you to accept it now. Simple obedience to Dr's final instrctions yielded the 90 references for me. It will for you too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
VPW is not God. Nor were his works authored by God. Stop using circular reasoning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'm talking about God telling US the answer to your question of "...who's to say?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Please Mike, respectfully, don't tell me what I would or would not have done.
I'm not placing any criteria on God. I'm simply saying take PFAL's content for what it says of itself. "thus said the Lord" doesn't qualify it for what you've said. I've read that in PFAL too. On face value I don't believe it indicates what you say it does.
No offense Mike but you're just not a reliable source of input and perspective on PFAL. That's why I'm posting to this thread and not the other one. Your Table of Challenge thing has been discussed interminably and it's a non-issue for me at this point. Go back and read what I've responded to previously to it. I'm not interested in revisiting it.
On the plagiarism topic it's all been discussed before too and I think this thread thus far clearly documents most of the points to be considered. It's up to each person to decide what direction they want to go in, there's enough information here to at least get a person started on considering where it stands.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I know what you meant, Mike.
Here's the thing: where Bullinger disagrees with Wierwille, I go to the Bible to determine who's right. The tattered remnants you so belittle, remember? Why? Because both Bullinger and Wierwille recognize the Bible as authoritative over their own works, whereas you don't.
Yeah, I know all your comebacks. Save them for someone who gives a flying fig.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Correction: They both recognize the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS as authoritative, and they both recognize problems with all the copies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
I like and admire your ability to think critically and to reason, even though it IS only reason (BTMS p.23 bottom).
You wrote with GREAT reasoning:
"A. Give Vic revelation to write certain things, not telling him that they were already written by others.
"B. Give Vic revelation to write certain things, telling him that they were already written by others [may I add "by revelation" here?).
"C. Direct Vic to copy from other authors"
These three possibilities have gotten years of pondering time from me, but for simplicity's sake I could only bring myself to mentioning to (B.) even though (C.) definitely occurs every time Dr quotes a KJV verse.
So you think my God would be small to use small to use (A.)??? Did you know that similar things happen in science from time to time. It happens so much that one maverick scientist (still somewhat officially accepted though) named Rupert Sheldrake has come up with a fundamental theory to describe the phenomenon.
Why would a magnanimous God use (A.) from time to time? To give Dr great confirmation that he was on the right track as Dr would find the previous texts, and that it was worth while to ignore the jeers and protests as he departed radically from tradition. We might call it the Higgins/Bullinger effect.
I already know from my KJV that in the OT that this same magnanimous God often employed techniques that would not pass the kinds of tests your great reasoning powers might insist on, as well as mine, and as well as theology in general.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
socks,
I was issuing a "what if" statement and citing no authority to do so, so I implied that I was issuing an "In my opinion, neither you, nor I , nor..." kind of statement, and not one of any definiteness.
To satisfy you I will add "IMO" next time I say that of you.
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.