We do, however, have the MANY thousands who came to know God from PFAL like never before and never since. You don’t see them testifying here at GSC, but that’s because they still respect him. Many of them have told me they wont come here for all the negative reports about him and what he taught, even though they do know many things went wrong in the ministry.
We do, however, have the MANY thousands who came to know God from PFAL like never before and never since. You don’t see them testifying here at GSC, but that’s because they still respect him. Many of them have told me they wont come here for all the negative reports about him and what he taught, even though they do know many things went wrong in the ministry. These many thousands teach what he taught them in their fellowships, and that can be readily determined in many ways. ...Oh, yes, we also have the testimony of a few here that he had sin in his life, but scripture already had assured us of that.
Mike... that's exactly why I think your doing a Myspace.com thing would really be a neat thing...
For Moses we have scripture to tell us what he did.
For Dr we don’t have scripture to tell us what he did.
We do, however, have the MANY thousands who came to know God from PFAL like never before and never since. You don’t see them testifying here at GSC, but that’s because they still respect him. Many of them have told me they wont come here for all the negative reports about him and what he taught, even though they do know many things went wrong in the ministry. These many thousands teach what he taught them in their fellowships, and that can be readily determined in many ways. ...Oh, yes, we also have the testimony of a few here that he had sin in his life, but scripture already had assured us of that.
doojable,
Have you come to rescue me from all the talk about me? I need it!
Save you Mike?? I'm not sure I can fill those shoes.
Now regarding the whole Moses?Weirwille thing:
Moses went on to go up against ( almost single handedly - unless you count Aaron) a major government, and the local "god."
He led a nation of millions out of captivity.
He received the revelation that would define a people and lay groundwork for the Messiah ( after all, you can't fulfill something that doesn't exist.)
He dealt with a headstrong people and never once is it reported that he slept around or had women brougth to his tent ( but we know it would have been easy - just look at how quickly Israel turned to idoltry just because Moses was gone a while.)
BUT - he had a bad temper - so bad that even Dr said that the first time the he broke the tablets God made Moses replace them. ( As you know God wrote them the first time - but the next time Moses had to be the guy Friday.)
A temper so bad that when he struck the rock a second time, he wasn't allowed in the promised land.
Now - Dr - he may have taught PFAL - but I have a hard time believing that he fits in the same category as Moses - "the friend of God." If God cut Moses out of the promised land after 2 fits of temper - how do you think He will dealt with MULTIPLE fits of temper, adultery, drunkeness, dishonesty ect, etc, etc, ad nauseum - a la VPW?
So what is the point of all this "conversation?" We keep throwing barbs and information back and forth and insulting and chiding.
I simply cannot believe that God smiles on this. I'm guilty. I'll admit it. I'm not sure I can continue if this is where this thread is going to stay stuck.
I simply cannot believe that God smiles on this. I'm guilty. I'll admit it. I'm not sure I can continue if this is where this thread is going to stay stuck.
Dooj --- this is about as far as these threads get with Mike,
and the ensuing discussion about pfal.
I think I'll follow you out the door, and whoever is last to leave -- please turn off the lights.
Yea --- I think I am done here too. Thanks for the reminder -- Dooj. I think you are right about God NOT smiling on this here. Mea Culpa in my camp too.
We do, however, have the MANY thousands who came to know God from PFAL like never before and never since. You don’t see them testifying here at GSC, but that’s because they still respect him.
Funny how these "MANY thousands" never seem to actually
set up a messageboard of their OWN, which would be Mike's
homebase. ANYBODY can set up a messageboard.
This would lead one to think that there's not enough ACTUAL
people in this account to justify even setting UP a board in
a "if you build it, they will come" sort of way.
Many of them have told me they wont come here for all the negative reports about him and what he taught, even though they do know many things went wrong in the ministry.
If I didn't want to read accounts of how the 1942 promise was a lie,
and the Tulsa blizzard was a lie, and how the man who supposedly
was God's special messenger was instead a proven liar who ripped
off all his best work from others, and fabricated incidents proving he
was special,
meanwhile enjoying taking sexual advantage of his female adherents,
and indulging in lifelong vices of alcohol and tobacco which lead
to his early death, and considered every item owned by the
ministry as "his" (minus the luxury tax since the ministry supposedly
owned it),
I wouldn't want to visit the GSC EITHER.
That didn't even address any of the error in what he taught.
These many thousands teach what he taught them in their fellowships, and that can be readily determined in many ways. ...Oh, yes, we also have the testimony of a few here that he had sin in his life, but scripture already had assured us of that.
Scripture assured us that false prophets would seek to deceive
I simply cannot believe that God smiles on this. I'm guilty. I'll admit it. I'm not sure I can continue if this is where this thread is going to stay stuck.
Dooj- Why wouldn't God 'smile' upon folks defending Him and His Word?
This thread (along with any involving Mike) always gets 'stuck' in the same pattern of Mike throws out his unorthodox opinions as 'statements of truth' and others state theirs in that they believe they are only Mike's opinions and they believe they are "not of God". For those who take the discourse seriously I think it actually helps them 'bone up' and re-affirm what they believe. Of course this too is just my opinion.
Personally, I think God has a lot of other bigger things to occupy His time than what banter takes place on a message board called GSC. But if that's the way you feel then that's the way you feel.
Dooj- Why wouldn't God 'smile' upon folks defending Him and His Word?
This thread (along with any involving Mike) always gets 'stuck' in the same pattern of Mike throws out his unorthodox opinions as 'statements of truth' and others state theirs in that they believe they are only Mike's opinions and they believe they are "not of God". For those who take the discourse seriously I think it actually helps them 'bone up' and re-affirm what they believe. Of course this too is just my opinion.
Personally, I think God has a lot of other bigger things to occupy His time than what banter takes place on a message board called GSC. But if that's the way you feel then that's the way you feel.
Tom,
I'm not going permanently - I jst can't stand when things get stuck and the logic circles the drain.
I know Dr doesn't use those exact words, but he does imply it, and quite strongly.
Try reading those 22 statements again.
You breezed through them all in less than 50 minutes from the time stamps, probably less. That's like less than 5 minutes per statement. I've spent years pondering them and still see new things when I return to read them again.
I don't need to read them again. They are clearly not implying anything like you suggest. Maybe you should spend less time "pondering" and more time reading what Wierwille actually wrote.
Mike: "PFAL is the word of God"
Wierwille: "The Bible is revealed Word and will of God"
(Not any particular translation, but as it was originally given )
Mike: The Bible is tattered remnants: Unreliable
"Just like the ancient scriptures suffered from man's interference in mis-copies, forgeries,
possibly even total loss, and CERTAINLY mistranslation, so did the other sources have
contamination."
Wierwille: "If a minister does not believe that the Bible is God's Word and if he thinks that it is full of
myths and forgeries, what would be the man's actions be if he followed what he believes? He would get out of the pulpit if he were honest with himself."
You wrote: “Wierwille: ‘The Bible is revealed Word and will of God’ __ (Not any particular translation, but as it was originally given )”
So, any particular translation of the ancient scriptures is NOT the revealed Word and will of God.
And any particular VERSION of the ancient scriptures is even less the revealed Word and will of God.
Therefore any translation or version of the ancient scriptures is NOT the Bible.
So where IS the real Bible, the real revealed Word and will of God?
Answer: The real Bible is in the first century, and not in any bookstore, regardless of the titles men put on books of their own doing.
Problem: What good is this real Bible to us if it’s so far away in time and inaccessible?
Solution: God re-issues His Word, and as His ways are characteristically not like our ways, His re-issue does not conform to man’s traditions in MANY ways and throws religion into a tizzy.
***
You wrote: “Wierwille: ‘If a minister does not believe that the Bible is God's Word and if he thinks that it is full of myths and forgeries, what would be the man's actions be if he followed what he believes? He would get out of the pulpit if he were honest with himself.”
Let’s work this a little and see what happens.
It is my opinion (which MAY be totally on the money{Hi Tom}) that from the context, Dr’s use of the word “Bible” here in this passage may not the same as his more formal definition of “Bible” you supplied in the top quote above.
People do this all the time, wander from one to another usage of a word to another with context supporting, and this is why nearly every word in every large dictionary has many listed uses. I’ve never yet seen a word with only one use, but there may be a few.
I think Dr’s use of “Bible” in this passage is the standard KJV. Let’s substitute and se if it makes any difference. I’m willing to take this chance because in this passage I very well know that Dr is not talking about the minister holding in his hand an “as originally given” kind of Bible.
Mike’s paraphrase: ““If a minister does not believe that the KJV is God's Word and if he thinks that it is full of myths and forgeries, what would be the man's actions be if he followed what he believes? He would get out of the pulpit if he were honest with himself.””
That looks pretty good to me.
Let’s go back to the original passage, but this time substitute in Dr’s formal definition, instead of KJV.
Mike’s paraphrase: ““If a minister does not believe that the set of ancient scriptures as originally given is God's Word and if he thinks that it is full of myths and forgeries, what would be the man's actions be if he followed what he believes? He would get out of the pulpit if he were honest with himself.””
Gee, that looks pretty good too. I’m happy. We can move on now.
***
You wrote: “Mike: The Bible is tattered remnants: Unreliable __ ‘Just like the ancient scriptures suffered from man's interference in mis-copies, forgeries, possibly even total loss, and CERTAINLY mistranslation, so did the other sources have contamination.’”
I’m not sure what the last phrase here is all about, “so did the other sources have contamination.” If I wrote it, I forget the context of it. It would be nice, if you’re going to quote me, to reference the location.
Now, I totally disagree with your stating that my position is “The Bible is tattered remnants.”
It’s a fact that the ancient manuscripts are fragments of varying lengths, none of them complete, and many a mere page or so. They are very tattered. What we have of them is not a complete collection, but only remnants, and worse, there are many miscopies and forgeries mixed in with them.
Does anyone disagree with this? I don’t think so.
It’s a fact that the critical Greek texts are modern scholarly efforts to reconstruct what the complete originals must have said, AND TOM, they are opinions, and in some cases mere (wrong) opinions.
It’s a fact that translation is an art and not a science and many mere opinions get into the mix. There is great disagreement between linguistic experts and hence the many differing translations and versions in Bible bookstores.
But it’s NOT a fact that my position is that revealed Word and will of God is “Unreliable” as you put it.
I do that to sometimes. Everyone needs a rest from these things, especially when you think of how many words we are writing. I have sometimes taken off for months.
We finally have some multiple points of agreement to celebrate!
You wrote: “This thread (along with any involving Mike) always gets 'stuck' in the same pattern of Mike throws out his unorthodox opinions as 'statements of truth' and others state theirs in that they believe they are only Mike's opinions and they believe they are "not of God".”
I agree we always get stuck, and I’d add that it usually revolves around the same theme of Dr being flawed and/or me being flawed, while I scream to get the topic back onto the contents of PFAL.
I’ll also add that in the process, I think have been successful in injecting into the collective GCS consciousness many new ideas and surprising facts from the print and tape record on ministry history. I plan to itemize them someday.
Just on this thread, just from memory, we’ve covered great ground on the law of believing and what was forgotten about it, counterfeit seed, the “lots of the stuff I teach is not original” quote that so many forgot, Dr’s many forgotten claims about written PFAL whatever label (God-breathed, super special, etc.) you want to use, and many more small items of forgotten PFAL material.
It is certainly the case that very few posters here accept what I have posted in between all the distractions, but they at least have been exposed to it and have had a chance to START thinking on new paths.
So, Tom, I’d disagree slightly on these threads being completely bogged down.
***
You wrote: “For those who take the discourse seriously I think it actually helps them 'bone up' and re-affirm what they believe. Of course this too is just my opinion.”
But Tom, if it truly is “just” your opinion, and not any more, and therefore wrong, then why post it? Oh... whoops... I’m trying to celebrate our agreement here.
Yes, it certainly DOES help me 'bone up' and re-affirm what I believe. The challenges have been very enlightening. Dr tells how when he had a weekly (or was it daily) radio teaching it forced him to bone up on many more details than if he were just studying on his own.
***
You wrote: “Personally, I think God has a lot of other bigger things to occupy His time than what banter takes place on a message board called GSC.”
The banter, yes, is not worth God’s time. But the bringing back to our awareness of what He had written into PFAL, no, I think this is the absolute BIGGEST thing on God’s agenda.
Back to some agreement: I’m particularly pleased in how you included all of GSC here, and not just the threads I post on, which was what your post started out focusing on. Last night I was sore tempted to write on how I thought God was not pleased by the some of the activities on MANY more threads than these I gravitate to. There are often many things I want to post on, but I refrain for many reasons. I’m glad I refrained on this one, because I think you put some things here better than I could have, and certainly with more GSC credibility than what I could have mustered up.
You wrote: "Wierwille: 'The Bible is revealed Word and will of God' __ (Not any particular translation, but as it was originally given )"
So, any particular translation of the ancient scriptures is NOT the revealed Word and will of God.
And any particular VERSION of the ancient scriptures is even less the revealed Word and will of God.
Therefore any translation or version of the ancient scriptures is NOT the Bible.
LOL ! -- I know that was comming. Redefining the term Bible - you have done it before.
Fallacious argument: You excluded evidence that weakens/destroys your argument. You also slyly used "version" in regards to "ancient scripture". "Version" does not apply to "ancient scripture" but to "Bible" as in King James. Geneva, etc. Context Mike --- Nice try - no dice.
From PFAL: (with commentary) PFAL inPurple
1 . "Where it is not italicized in a King James Bible,..."
(a King James Bible)
2 "The Scripture used throughout this book is quoted
from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.
(Version of What Mike ? and Why did VPW call it "Scripture" (Capital S)?
3. Chapters were first put into the Bible in 1250 A.D. Verses first appeared in the
Geneva Bible in -1560 and then in the 1611 translation known as the King James.
( Note the term "the Bible" )
4: "Now your Bible fits like a hand in a glove; now we have the Word of God. "
(What Bible? "Your Bible" And what Bible is that ? Mine was a King James)
5: The Bible from which I have been quoting is called the King James Version.
(Note again, the term "the Bible.)
6: "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 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."
-----------------------------------------------
Wierwille taught that the true Word of God could be gleaned from "the Bible" by using the keys he taught in PFAL. He clearly taught that "the Bible" was the Word of God but he qualified that statement by saying that, " no translation or version of the Bible may PROPERLY be called the Word of God." Properly, becasue it was not the original. Clear as a bell what VPW was saying. -- That the Bible ( King James, Geneva, etc) is the revealed Word and Will of God. ---when it is rightly divided.
In other words the Word and Will of God is revealed by rightly dividing the Bible (King James or any other version of the Bible ( Wierwille seems that have preferred the King James Bible)
There is no need to redefine the term Bible to get to what Wierwille meant. Just read what is written.
Mike, PFAL is NOT the Word of God - properly or any other way. But neither can any version or translation of the Bible be PROPERLY called the Word of God. However, casually, the Bible (versions,translations) can be called the Word of God. Wierwille did exactly that.
But PFAL cannot even casually be called the Word of God where the Bible can be, because the Bible was translated from texts that go back to the originals that were "God breathed" .
PFAL cannot be even casually called the "Word of God" because the evidence shows that it is simply a peice-meal collection of plagairized, stolen, reworked and possibly some original material (some good and some not so good) put together by VPW. It goes back, only to an alleged promise, sealed by an unconfirmed snowstorm.
Mike, It's just a book, one of many, supposedly intended to help folks understand "the Bible". No manner of logical fallacy, dodging, distraction, denial, deception, outright lies, foisting, redefining of terms, or language twisting can make PFAL become "the Word of God." reissued or otherwise.
"So what is the point of all this "conversation?" We keep throwing barbs and information back and forth and insulting and chiding."
Back to some agreement: I’m particularly pleased in how you included all of GSC here, and not just the threads I post on, which was what your post started out focusing on.
The first quote is what I said. The second is what you said about my quote. Mike dear - please read only what is written and don't rad into my posts. I said "conversation" not "conversations." I was referring to this thread in particular. I post on each thread individually, and I don't post on one thread about another thread - seems sneaky to me.
I’ll also add that in the process, I think have been successful in injecting into the collective GCS consciousness many new ideas and surprising facts from the print and tape record on ministry history. I plan to itemize them someday.
Mike -- a simple question (if I may)?
Why do you continue to mention tapes, when you have said they are only *history*. Seriously -- I'm wondering. What *new ideas and surprising facts* are we going to learn from them (via your presentation of such), and if we quote you on it, will we be refuted (as before) for looking at the *tape* vs. the *written*??
You wrote: “Why do you continue to mention tapes, when you have said they are only *history*. Seriously -- I'm wondering. What *new ideas and surprising facts* are we going to learn from them (via your presentation of such), and if we quote you on it, will we be refuted (as before) for looking at the *tape* vs. the *written*??”
Why are you making a simple set of ideas unnecessarily complicated?
Let’s divide this issue into two major divisions: historical value and doctrinal value.
***
Let’s first look at historical value.
In the quote you supplied I simply stated that the tape and print record has some valuable items for us all. What kind of value? Historical value.
Many, many threads and posts here involve what happened to us in our TWI experience.
Many, many threads and posts here involve what we were taught in our TWI experience.
Many, many posters supply details to these experiences and teachings based on their memories. Memories are flimsy in many, many ways. Do I need to prove this? Gads, please say “No.”
The tape and print record are better than memory. Is this hard to understand?
***
Now let’s look at doctrine.
Please keep in mind that I am speaking from the perspective that God commissioned Dr to teach His Word like it has not been known since the first century. If you do not keep this in mind, at least temporarily believing it as an intellectual experiment, then you will not understand what I say below, as well as many other things I post.
If you do not like “intellectual experiment” then how about “step into my shoes to see this” or “try looking at it from my perspective.”
If you do not want to keep this in mind, at least temporarily, and insist I prove it first, then you will NEVER understand me. Get it? If God commissioning Dr is too repugnant for you to hold it in mind for the amount of time it takes to read with comprehension, then it’s over and you CANNOT understand me. Your refusal disqualifies you from understanding.
I was often told, and it makes perfect sense, that when Dr spoke, he was pretty careful to speak what God was teaching him. When he spoke into a microphone, he was much more careful to track with what God was teaching him and eliminate what he felt God wanted not spoken.
Following so far? Wouldn’t you do the same if you had thousands of eager young students hanging on your every word?
I’ve been often told by people who worked closely with Dr on printed publications that had his name on them that he was ten to one hundred times more careful to get EXACTLY, word-for-word and punctuation included, what God wanted in print. Two of Dr's editors I regard as very, very close friends of mine, spending hundreds of hours in converstions with them over a twenty five year span. I lived across the street for two years from another editor, but knew him less well. I also talked to and e-mailed with a few others.
Dr put much more time into his print record, and much more effort, and checked it over and over and over (more times than I want to write "over") before releasing it. He focused on much more minute details than he did for his taped teachings.
Very, very often his taped teachings served as preliminary, early drafts for a later printed teaching.
I've often posted that the film class was more of an introduction to the books, than an end product. One major error of most grads, me included, was that we tended to treat the film as the big enchilada, and the books as mere souvenirs of the class. Dr tried to correct this for the last ten years of his life and we refused to hear it. We blew him off, and this guilt lies more with leadership, the “higher” the leader the more guilt.
So, because I want to know accurately and in detailed form what God’s Word and will is, I now pay the most attention to the print record for doctrine. This was a major reversal for me starting in 1998 and it took a few years to reorient my perspective.
Can I get some doctrine from tapes? Yes, but it’s less sure. Why is it less sure? Because Dr put less time into his tape efforts COMPARED to his print efforts.
Physically editing tapes AFTER the original is made is infinitely more difficult and time consuming than editing print text BEFORE it is released.
I worked in the Tape Duplicating Dept for two years. The AV Dept. had only a few hours to very slightly edit the Sunday night tape for length or noise reduction. It was very rare for anything to be removed from the teaching and never was anything added that I ever knew of. It would have been big news if something was added. Early Monday morning the "working master" tape was delivered to the Tape Duplicating Dept. and we had two days to make (I think) two thousand copies to be mailed out as soon as possible.
***
When there is a conflict between a tape and a printed record in Dr’s teaching, the print takes precedence.
For starting out in coming back to this Word God taught Dr and Dr taught us, it’s got to start with the print record as a strong foundation. After that foundation is laid and firmly in place some tapes can be brought in for supplementary benefits. That way conflicts between the two can be spotted from the more sure print foundation, than vise versa from the less sure ground.
When Dr was starting to wrap up the last ten years of his ministry he often and increasingly urged us to master the print record of his teachings, not the tape record, not the Advanced Class, and I might add, not our somewhat corrected KJVs.
***
For doctrine (God’s exact Word) the print record far exceeds the tape record.
For history (what happed to us, accurately) the print and tape look pretty equal to me.
***
Sometimes I post on history, sometimes I post on doctrine, sometimes I post on both at once or closely adjacent.
As I have admitted several times, I sometimes err in this policy because of my vast and extensive tape history, a history much more tape oriented than most grads. Do I need to supply details? I could fill a page or two but I don’t want to bother. It won’t help anyone.
The quote you supplied of mine was addressed to Tom Strange and not you.
You initiated the issue in your manner, but Tom repeated the issue in his manner. I chose not to address your handling of the issue, but Tom’s.
Maybe you should have taken that nap before posting. I can’t follow what you mean about intra-thread commenting at all. Please repeat it if it’s important.
***
I wasn’t being sneaky. There was a miscommunication.
Oddly, the same thing happened with Goey. There it was I who erred and mis-communicated, but the same charge of being sneaky was leveled at me. Agape thinketh no evil. I was not being sneaky in either case. I’m still writing my response to Goey because his is longer.
You wrote: “You also slyly used "version" in regards to "ancient scripture". "Version" does not apply to "ancient scripture" but to "Bible" as in King James. Geneva, etc. Context Mike --- Nice try - no dice.”
There was a slight miscommunication here, and I think it was my fault.
You had written:
"Wierwille: 'The Bible is revealed Word and will of God' __ (Not any particular translation, but as it was originally given )"
Then I wrote:
1) So, any particular translation of the ancient scriptures is NOT the revealed Word and will of God.
2) And any particular VERSION of the ancient scriptures is even less the revealed Word and will of God.
3) Therefore any translation or version of the ancient scriptures is NOT the Bible.
Line 2) of mine SHOULD have been written:
“And any particular VERSION of a translation of the ancient scriptures is even less the revealed Word and will of God.”
I was thinking of an oft quoted by me passage from segment 16 of the film class where Dr says: "Now I said that no translation, no translation, let alone a version, no translation may properly be called The Word Of God..." Here Dr indicates that a version is even less the true Word than translations. He later went on to explain that first a translation is produced, and then theologians work it with their flesh and religious bias to produce a version to be released to the public.
I wasn’t trying to be sly. I was just trying to make line (2) closer to the same length as line (1) for ease of reading and comprehension. Now that you pointed this out, I see that the way I wrote it does lead to a miscommunication of what I was trying to say.
With this correction in mind, you may want to alter some of the rest of your post, or maybe not. Please let me know.
At the very least, though, I would suggest that you re-read my post #963 with this correction in mind.
***
Yes, I am altering the definition of Bible, in a sense. This is not all that crazy a thing to try and do, though. It’s done all the time, and when it’s done en masse it leads to an additional usage listed in new dictionaries. It’s how languages evolve.
The reason I am doing this definition alteration is because we are not here looking at how the general population uses the word “Bible,” but are rather looking at how VPW used that word. So, I’m suggesting that if we want to track with what Dr taught then we must determine if he used that word in the standard way or if he altered the definition at some points in his teachings. Context is the key to seeing this.
For him to alter such a thing might be a quirky thing to do. It might normally be a thing that is a wasted effort because no one might be willing to follow suit and add a such usage of “Bible” to their internal dictionaries’ listings.
However, for a leader of a large movement this is less likely to be a wasted effort, at least within the population of followers of such a movement.
Add to this, if it’s true, God being behind the definition alteration and the effort is not wasted at all, and even likely to someday lead to a mass alteration of the definition, which would then demand new dictionaries to no only add the usage to their listings, but maybe even place it in the number one slot.
***
The several items you supplied prove nothing more than Dr (like all people) had the privilege of using slightly differing definitions of the same word at times.
***
You wrote: “Wierwille taught that the true Word of God could be gleaned from "the Bible" by using the keys he taught in PFAL.”
Here it looks like “Bible” is used in the conventional sense, because its flaws are implied by the gleaning process.
Yes, Wierwille taught keys, but that doesn’t preclude the possibility that God inspired him exactly what to teach.
***
You wrote: “He clearly taught that "the Bible" was the Word of God but he qualified that statement by saying that, " no translation or version of the Bible may PROPERLY be called the Word of God." Properly, becasue it was not the original. Clear as a bell what VPW was saying. -- That the Bible ( King James, Geneva, etc) is the revealed Word and Will of God. ---when it is rightly divided.”
Sure, it is, WHEN IT IS RIGHTLY DIVIDED, but not when it is freshly taken off the shelves in a bookstore. And how do we get it rightly divided, and not humanly divided? By God inspiring him exactly what to teach us.
***
You wrote (with my bold fonts): “Mike, PFAL is NOT the Word of God - properly or any other way. But neither can any version or translation of the Bible be PROPERLY called the Word of God. However, casually, the Bible (versions, translations) can be called the Word of God. Wierwille did exactly that.”
Yes, casually. That’s how we started out in PFAL, casually. Some of us hippies may have been more casual than others. But is that how we are to end our studies? No. We are to become masters of the Word. In order to graduate to that level Dr told us to master written PFAL, not our casual KJV Bibles.
***
You wrote : “But PFAL cannot even casually be called the Word of God where the Bible can be, because the Bible was translated from texts that go back to the originals that were ‘God breathed.’”
No. The translations were not done by God’s exact revelation in all places and in all points. The translations were given by the flesh of men and committees. One translation contradicts another. Result: we either have no God-breathed texts, or God supplied our need in written PFAL.
***
You wrote : “PFAL cannot be even casually called the "Word of God" because the evidence shows that it is simply a peice-meal collection of plagairized, stolen, reworked and possibly some original material (some good and some not so good) put together by VPW. It goes back, only to an alleged promise, sealed by an unconfirmed snowstorm.
No, it does not ONLY go back only to that, but also to the benefits thousands of only somewhat careful and persistent students derived and still derive from it.
The evidence you cite was produced by people biased against the truth of PFAL being from God, and refusing to utilize all possible approaches.
You seem to think that God is forbidden to utilize the piece-meal process to get His Word into print? Why do you forbid God that?
If God was involved in inspiring the pieces or parts of the pieces, then it wasn’t theft. God is the owner.
How do we tell the difference between the good and the bad in religion, science, theology, and eastern religions?
Since you are convinced there is bad in my posting isn’t it logical that there can bad in religion, science, theology, and eastern religions?
There MUST be something that is "all good" that we can use to tell the difference between good and bad in religion, science, theology, and eastern religions.
I think that the "all good" is written PFAL.
What do you think is the “all good” that can be used by anyone to tell the difference between the good and the bad in religion, science, theology, and eastern religions?
If it’s not something that can be put on a table, seen by anyone, readable by anyone, and having some physical weight, then I’m not interested.
I was all ready for bed and suddenly remembered another item.
This is something that I’ve posted long ago, but I think not lately at all.
Sometimes for doctrinal purposes I’ll use the audio taped soundtrack of the film class because it’s very similar to the printed record, but the exact wording of the film class stimulates MUCH more memory of readers than the corresponding slightly different print record.
The quote you supplied of mine was addressed to Tom Strange and not you.
You initiated the issue in your manner, but Tom repeated the issue in his manner. I chose not to address your handling of the issue, but Tom's.
Maybe you should have taken that nap before posting. I can't follow what you mean about intra-thread commenting at all. Please repeat it if it's important.
***
I wasn't being sneaky. There was a miscommunication.
Oddly, the same thing happened with Goey. There it was I who erred and mis-communicated, but the same charge of being sneaky was leveled at me. Agape thinketh no evil. I was not being sneaky in either case. I'm still writing my response to Goey because his is longer.
Mike - sorry I misunderstood - You had made a statement after addressing me. Therefore I said that I wasn't referring to all the other threads - referring to things that God wouldn't be happy with.
Change what you put in your mind. To change the food you are sending to your mind is to “renew your mind.” Think those things which are true, honest, just, pure, lovely and of good report. __ If you by your free will accept Christ as your Savior and renew your mind according to The Word, you will find that every word I have written to you is true. I challenge you to stand upon the Word of God, declare your authority in Christ and claim your rights.
Clearly he is not referring to every word without exception, but every word that he has written previously on the subject that he is writing about.
So what is Wierwille saying here? That his words in the previous section are the equivalent to scripture? Or that they are true because they line up with what the bible says? It would really be a stretch to suppose that he was saying anything other than his words line up biblically, therefore they are true.
"Thus Saith The Lord Statement"#2
Paul in I Thessalonians 2:13, thanked God that ‘when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.’ You too must follow God’s truth as told in the Word of God. But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive. If you know that what I am saying to you are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is speaking to you by me, then you too will manifest the greatness of the power of God. If you will literally do what I ask you, then you can manifest the fullness of the abundance of God, the wonderful power of God.”
I'd be interested in the broader context here. Is what he wrote previous to this quote Wierwille quoting scripture? Or is it Wierwille speaking on his own? (or claiming to speak by revelation)
In both of these statements we have Wierwille very obviously claiming that what he has taught is true. He is considering no other possibility. But is he suggesting that what he is writing can in any way replace, or supercede 'the bible'? If he is saying it, it's not in these two statements.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
89
149
306
85
Popular Days
Feb 10
62
Feb 20
61
Feb 11
46
Mar 2
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 89 posts
CM 149 posts
Mike 306 posts
Tom Strange 85 posts
Popular Days
Feb 10 2006
62 posts
Feb 20 2006
61 posts
Feb 11 2006
46 posts
Mar 2 2006
45 posts
Posted Images
dmiller
Why does the word *ostrich* come to mind??? <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike... that's exactly why I think your doing a Myspace.com thing would really be a neat thing...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mikespace.com?? Shouldn't that be Mikespace.edu?;)
Ohhh -- wait a minute, you said ---- nemmermind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Save you Mike?? I'm not sure I can fill those shoes.
Now regarding the whole Moses?Weirwille thing:
Moses went on to go up against ( almost single handedly - unless you count Aaron) a major government, and the local "god."
He led a nation of millions out of captivity.
He received the revelation that would define a people and lay groundwork for the Messiah ( after all, you can't fulfill something that doesn't exist.)
He dealt with a headstrong people and never once is it reported that he slept around or had women brougth to his tent ( but we know it would have been easy - just look at how quickly Israel turned to idoltry just because Moses was gone a while.)
BUT - he had a bad temper - so bad that even Dr said that the first time the he broke the tablets God made Moses replace them. ( As you know God wrote them the first time - but the next time Moses had to be the guy Friday.)
A temper so bad that when he struck the rock a second time, he wasn't allowed in the promised land.
Now - Dr - he may have taught PFAL - but I have a hard time believing that he fits in the same category as Moses - "the friend of God." If God cut Moses out of the promised land after 2 fits of temper - how do you think He will dealt with MULTIPLE fits of temper, adultery, drunkeness, dishonesty ect, etc, etc, ad nauseum - a la VPW?
So what is the point of all this "conversation?" We keep throwing barbs and information back and forth and insulting and chiding.
I simply cannot believe that God smiles on this. I'm guilty. I'll admit it. I'm not sure I can continue if this is where this thread is going to stay stuck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Dooj --- this is about as far as these threads get with Mike,
and the ensuing discussion about pfal.
I think I'll follow you out the door, and whoever is last to leave -- please turn off the lights.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Yea --- I think I am done here too. Thanks for the reminder -- Dooj. I think you are right about God NOT smiling on this here. Mea Culpa in my camp too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Ya all mind of the resident LDS tags along with you guys??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Funny how these "MANY thousands" never seem to actually
set up a messageboard of their OWN, which would be Mike's
homebase. ANYBODY can set up a messageboard.
This would lead one to think that there's not enough ACTUAL
people in this account to justify even setting UP a board in
a "if you build it, they will come" sort of way.
If I didn't want to read accounts of how the 1942 promise was a lie,and the Tulsa blizzard was a lie, and how the man who supposedly
was God's special messenger was instead a proven liar who ripped
off all his best work from others, and fabricated incidents proving he
was special,
meanwhile enjoying taking sexual advantage of his female adherents,
and indulging in lifelong vices of alcohol and tobacco which lead
to his early death, and considered every item owned by the
ministry as "his" (minus the luxury tax since the ministry supposedly
owned it),
I wouldn't want to visit the GSC EITHER.
That didn't even address any of the error in what he taught.
Scripture assured us that false prophets would seek to deceive
the very elect, I firmly agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Dooj- Why wouldn't God 'smile' upon folks defending Him and His Word?
This thread (along with any involving Mike) always gets 'stuck' in the same pattern of Mike throws out his unorthodox opinions as 'statements of truth' and others state theirs in that they believe they are only Mike's opinions and they believe they are "not of God". For those who take the discourse seriously I think it actually helps them 'bone up' and re-affirm what they believe. Of course this too is just my opinion.
Personally, I think God has a lot of other bigger things to occupy His time than what banter takes place on a message board called GSC. But if that's the way you feel then that's the way you feel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Tom,
I'm not going permanently - I jst can't stand when things get stuck and the logic circles the drain.
I'll be lurking and waiting - I need the rest.
Tag! You're it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I don't need to read them again. They are clearly not implying anything like you suggest. Maybe you should spend less time "pondering" and more time reading what Wierwille actually wrote.
Mike: "PFAL is the word of God"
Wierwille: "The Bible is revealed Word and will of God"
(Not any particular translation, but as it was originally given )
Mike: The Bible is tattered remnants: Unreliable
"Just like the ancient scriptures suffered from man's interference in mis-copies, forgeries,
possibly even total loss, and CERTAINLY mistranslation, so did the other sources have
contamination."
Wierwille: "If a minister does not believe that the Bible is God's Word and if he thinks that it is full of
myths and forgeries, what would be the man's actions be if he followed what he believes? He would get out of the pulpit if he were honest with himself."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
You wrote: “Wierwille: ‘The Bible is revealed Word and will of God’ __ (Not any particular translation, but as it was originally given )”
So, any particular translation of the ancient scriptures is NOT the revealed Word and will of God.
And any particular VERSION of the ancient scriptures is even less the revealed Word and will of God.
Therefore any translation or version of the ancient scriptures is NOT the Bible.
So where IS the real Bible, the real revealed Word and will of God?
Answer: The real Bible is in the first century, and not in any bookstore, regardless of the titles men put on books of their own doing.
Problem: What good is this real Bible to us if it’s so far away in time and inaccessible?
Solution: God re-issues His Word, and as His ways are characteristically not like our ways, His re-issue does not conform to man’s traditions in MANY ways and throws religion into a tizzy.
***
You wrote: “Wierwille: ‘If a minister does not believe that the Bible is God's Word and if he thinks that it is full of myths and forgeries, what would be the man's actions be if he followed what he believes? He would get out of the pulpit if he were honest with himself.”
Let’s work this a little and see what happens.
It is my opinion (which MAY be totally on the money{Hi Tom}) that from the context, Dr’s use of the word “Bible” here in this passage may not the same as his more formal definition of “Bible” you supplied in the top quote above.
People do this all the time, wander from one to another usage of a word to another with context supporting, and this is why nearly every word in every large dictionary has many listed uses. I’ve never yet seen a word with only one use, but there may be a few.
I think Dr’s use of “Bible” in this passage is the standard KJV. Let’s substitute and se if it makes any difference. I’m willing to take this chance because in this passage I very well know that Dr is not talking about the minister holding in his hand an “as originally given” kind of Bible.
Mike’s paraphrase: ““If a minister does not believe that the KJV is God's Word and if he thinks that it is full of myths and forgeries, what would be the man's actions be if he followed what he believes? He would get out of the pulpit if he were honest with himself.””
That looks pretty good to me.
Let’s go back to the original passage, but this time substitute in Dr’s formal definition, instead of KJV.
Mike’s paraphrase: ““If a minister does not believe that the set of ancient scriptures as originally given is God's Word and if he thinks that it is full of myths and forgeries, what would be the man's actions be if he followed what he believes? He would get out of the pulpit if he were honest with himself.””
Gee, that looks pretty good too. I’m happy. We can move on now.
***
You wrote: “Mike: The Bible is tattered remnants: Unreliable __ ‘Just like the ancient scriptures suffered from man's interference in mis-copies, forgeries, possibly even total loss, and CERTAINLY mistranslation, so did the other sources have contamination.’”
I’m not sure what the last phrase here is all about, “so did the other sources have contamination.” If I wrote it, I forget the context of it. It would be nice, if you’re going to quote me, to reference the location.
Now, I totally disagree with your stating that my position is “The Bible is tattered remnants.”
It’s a fact that the ancient manuscripts are fragments of varying lengths, none of them complete, and many a mere page or so. They are very tattered. What we have of them is not a complete collection, but only remnants, and worse, there are many miscopies and forgeries mixed in with them.
Does anyone disagree with this? I don’t think so.
It’s a fact that the critical Greek texts are modern scholarly efforts to reconstruct what the complete originals must have said, AND TOM, they are opinions, and in some cases mere (wrong) opinions.
It’s a fact that translation is an art and not a science and many mere opinions get into the mix. There is great disagreement between linguistic experts and hence the many differing translations and versions in Bible bookstores.
But it’s NOT a fact that my position is that revealed Word and will of God is “Unreliable” as you put it.
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
doojable,
I do that to sometimes. Everyone needs a rest from these things, especially when you think of how many words we are writing. I have sometimes taken off for months.
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
Tom Strange,
We finally have some multiple points of agreement to celebrate!
You wrote: “This thread (along with any involving Mike) always gets 'stuck' in the same pattern of Mike throws out his unorthodox opinions as 'statements of truth' and others state theirs in that they believe they are only Mike's opinions and they believe they are "not of God".”
I agree we always get stuck, and I’d add that it usually revolves around the same theme of Dr being flawed and/or me being flawed, while I scream to get the topic back onto the contents of PFAL.
I’ll also add that in the process, I think have been successful in injecting into the collective GCS consciousness many new ideas and surprising facts from the print and tape record on ministry history. I plan to itemize them someday.
Just on this thread, just from memory, we’ve covered great ground on the law of believing and what was forgotten about it, counterfeit seed, the “lots of the stuff I teach is not original” quote that so many forgot, Dr’s many forgotten claims about written PFAL whatever label (God-breathed, super special, etc.) you want to use, and many more small items of forgotten PFAL material.
It is certainly the case that very few posters here accept what I have posted in between all the distractions, but they at least have been exposed to it and have had a chance to START thinking on new paths.
So, Tom, I’d disagree slightly on these threads being completely bogged down.
***
You wrote: “For those who take the discourse seriously I think it actually helps them 'bone up' and re-affirm what they believe. Of course this too is just my opinion.”
But Tom, if it truly is “just” your opinion, and not any more, and therefore wrong, then why post it? Oh... whoops... I’m trying to celebrate our agreement here.
Yes, it certainly DOES help me 'bone up' and re-affirm what I believe. The challenges have been very enlightening. Dr tells how when he had a weekly (or was it daily) radio teaching it forced him to bone up on many more details than if he were just studying on his own.
***
You wrote: “Personally, I think God has a lot of other bigger things to occupy His time than what banter takes place on a message board called GSC.”
The banter, yes, is not worth God’s time. But the bringing back to our awareness of what He had written into PFAL, no, I think this is the absolute BIGGEST thing on God’s agenda.
Back to some agreement: I’m particularly pleased in how you included all of GSC here, and not just the threads I post on, which was what your post started out focusing on. Last night I was sore tempted to write on how I thought God was not pleased by the some of the activities on MANY more threads than these I gravitate to. There are often many things I want to post on, but I refrain for many reasons. I’m glad I refrained on this one, because I think you put some things here better than I could have, and certainly with more GSC credibility than what I could have mustered up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike Posted:
LOL ! -- I know that was comming. Redefining the term Bible - you have done it before.
Fallacious argument: You excluded evidence that weakens/destroys your argument. You also slyly used "version" in regards to "ancient scripture". "Version" does not apply to "ancient scripture" but to "Bible" as in King James. Geneva, etc. Context Mike --- Nice try - no dice.
From PFAL: (with commentary) PFAL in Purple
1 . "Where it is not italicized in a King James Bible,..."
(a King James Bible)
2 "The Scripture used throughout this book is quoted
from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.
(Version of What Mike ? and Why did VPW call it "Scripture" (Capital S)?
3. Chapters were first put into the Bible in 1250 A.D. Verses first appeared in the
Geneva Bible in -1560 and then in the 1611 translation known as the King James.
( Note the term "the Bible" )
4: "Now your Bible fits like a hand in a glove; now we have the Word of God. "
(What Bible? "Your Bible" And what Bible is that ? Mine was a King James)
5: The Bible from which I have been quoting is called the King James Version.
(Note again, the term "the Bible.)
6: "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 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."
-----------------------------------------------
Wierwille taught that the true Word of God could be gleaned from "the Bible" by using the keys he taught in PFAL. He clearly taught that "the Bible" was the Word of God but he qualified that statement by saying that, " no translation or version of the Bible may PROPERLY be called the Word of God." Properly, becasue it was not the original. Clear as a bell what VPW was saying. -- That the Bible ( King James, Geneva, etc) is the revealed Word and Will of God. ---when it is rightly divided.
In other words the Word and Will of God is revealed by rightly dividing the Bible (King James or any other version of the Bible ( Wierwille seems that have preferred the King James Bible)
There is no need to redefine the term Bible to get to what Wierwille meant. Just read what is written.
Mike, PFAL is NOT the Word of God - properly or any other way. But neither can any version or translation of the Bible be PROPERLY called the Word of God. However, casually, the Bible (versions,translations) can be called the Word of God. Wierwille did exactly that.
But PFAL cannot even casually be called the Word of God where the Bible can be, because the Bible was translated from texts that go back to the originals that were "God breathed" .
PFAL cannot be even casually called the "Word of God" because the evidence shows that it is simply a peice-meal collection of plagairized, stolen, reworked and possibly some original material (some good and some not so good) put together by VPW. It goes back, only to an alleged promise, sealed by an unconfirmed snowstorm.
Mike, It's just a book, one of many, supposedly intended to help folks understand "the Bible". No manner of logical fallacy, dodging, distraction, denial, deception, outright lies, foisting, redefining of terms, or language twisting can make PFAL become "the Word of God." reissued or otherwise.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
"So what is the point of all this "conversation?" We keep throwing barbs and information back and forth and insulting and chiding."
The first quote is what I said. The second is what you said about my quote. Mike dear - please read only what is written and don't rad into my posts. I said "conversation" not "conversations." I was referring to this thread in particular. I post on each thread individually, and I don't post on one thread about another thread - seems sneaky to me.
I'm going to take a long nap now......
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mike -- a simple question (if I may)?
Why do you continue to mention tapes, when you have said they are only *history*. Seriously -- I'm wondering. What *new ideas and surprising facts* are we going to learn from them (via your presentation of such), and if we quote you on it, will we be refuted (as before) for looking at the *tape* vs. the *written*??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
You wrote: “Why do you continue to mention tapes, when you have said they are only *history*. Seriously -- I'm wondering. What *new ideas and surprising facts* are we going to learn from them (via your presentation of such), and if we quote you on it, will we be refuted (as before) for looking at the *tape* vs. the *written*??”
Why are you making a simple set of ideas unnecessarily complicated?
Let’s divide this issue into two major divisions: historical value and doctrinal value.
***
Let’s first look at historical value.
In the quote you supplied I simply stated that the tape and print record has some valuable items for us all. What kind of value? Historical value.
Many, many threads and posts here involve what happened to us in our TWI experience.
Many, many threads and posts here involve what we were taught in our TWI experience.
Many, many posters supply details to these experiences and teachings based on their memories. Memories are flimsy in many, many ways. Do I need to prove this? Gads, please say “No.”
The tape and print record are better than memory. Is this hard to understand?
***
Now let’s look at doctrine.
Please keep in mind that I am speaking from the perspective that God commissioned Dr to teach His Word like it has not been known since the first century. If you do not keep this in mind, at least temporarily believing it as an intellectual experiment, then you will not understand what I say below, as well as many other things I post.
If you do not like “intellectual experiment” then how about “step into my shoes to see this” or “try looking at it from my perspective.”
If you do not want to keep this in mind, at least temporarily, and insist I prove it first, then you will NEVER understand me. Get it? If God commissioning Dr is too repugnant for you to hold it in mind for the amount of time it takes to read with comprehension, then it’s over and you CANNOT understand me. Your refusal disqualifies you from understanding.
I was often told, and it makes perfect sense, that when Dr spoke, he was pretty careful to speak what God was teaching him. When he spoke into a microphone, he was much more careful to track with what God was teaching him and eliminate what he felt God wanted not spoken.
Following so far? Wouldn’t you do the same if you had thousands of eager young students hanging on your every word?
I’ve been often told by people who worked closely with Dr on printed publications that had his name on them that he was ten to one hundred times more careful to get EXACTLY, word-for-word and punctuation included, what God wanted in print. Two of Dr's editors I regard as very, very close friends of mine, spending hundreds of hours in converstions with them over a twenty five year span. I lived across the street for two years from another editor, but knew him less well. I also talked to and e-mailed with a few others.
Dr put much more time into his print record, and much more effort, and checked it over and over and over (more times than I want to write "over") before releasing it. He focused on much more minute details than he did for his taped teachings.
Very, very often his taped teachings served as preliminary, early drafts for a later printed teaching.
I've often posted that the film class was more of an introduction to the books, than an end product. One major error of most grads, me included, was that we tended to treat the film as the big enchilada, and the books as mere souvenirs of the class. Dr tried to correct this for the last ten years of his life and we refused to hear it. We blew him off, and this guilt lies more with leadership, the “higher” the leader the more guilt.
So, because I want to know accurately and in detailed form what God’s Word and will is, I now pay the most attention to the print record for doctrine. This was a major reversal for me starting in 1998 and it took a few years to reorient my perspective.
Can I get some doctrine from tapes? Yes, but it’s less sure. Why is it less sure? Because Dr put less time into his tape efforts COMPARED to his print efforts.
Physically editing tapes AFTER the original is made is infinitely more difficult and time consuming than editing print text BEFORE it is released.
I worked in the Tape Duplicating Dept for two years. The AV Dept. had only a few hours to very slightly edit the Sunday night tape for length or noise reduction. It was very rare for anything to be removed from the teaching and never was anything added that I ever knew of. It would have been big news if something was added. Early Monday morning the "working master" tape was delivered to the Tape Duplicating Dept. and we had two days to make (I think) two thousand copies to be mailed out as soon as possible.
***
When there is a conflict between a tape and a printed record in Dr’s teaching, the print takes precedence.
For starting out in coming back to this Word God taught Dr and Dr taught us, it’s got to start with the print record as a strong foundation. After that foundation is laid and firmly in place some tapes can be brought in for supplementary benefits. That way conflicts between the two can be spotted from the more sure print foundation, than vise versa from the less sure ground.
When Dr was starting to wrap up the last ten years of his ministry he often and increasingly urged us to master the print record of his teachings, not the tape record, not the Advanced Class, and I might add, not our somewhat corrected KJVs.
***
For doctrine (God’s exact Word) the print record far exceeds the tape record.
For history (what happed to us, accurately) the print and tape look pretty equal to me.
***
Sometimes I post on history, sometimes I post on doctrine, sometimes I post on both at once or closely adjacent.
As I have admitted several times, I sometimes err in this policy because of my vast and extensive tape history, a history much more tape oriented than most grads. Do I need to supply details? I could fill a page or two but I don’t want to bother. It won’t help anyone.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
doojable,
You’re comparing apples with oranges.
The quote you supplied of mine was addressed to Tom Strange and not you.
You initiated the issue in your manner, but Tom repeated the issue in his manner. I chose not to address your handling of the issue, but Tom’s.
Maybe you should have taken that nap before posting. I can’t follow what you mean about intra-thread commenting at all. Please repeat it if it’s important.
***
I wasn’t being sneaky. There was a miscommunication.
Oddly, the same thing happened with Goey. There it was I who erred and mis-communicated, but the same charge of being sneaky was leveled at me. Agape thinketh no evil. I was not being sneaky in either case. I’m still writing my response to Goey because his is longer.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
You wrote: “You also slyly used "version" in regards to "ancient scripture". "Version" does not apply to "ancient scripture" but to "Bible" as in King James. Geneva, etc. Context Mike --- Nice try - no dice.”
There was a slight miscommunication here, and I think it was my fault.
You had written:
"Wierwille: 'The Bible is revealed Word and will of God' __ (Not any particular translation, but as it was originally given )"
Then I wrote:
1) So, any particular translation of the ancient scriptures is NOT the revealed Word and will of God.
2) And any particular VERSION of the ancient scriptures is even less the revealed Word and will of God.
3) Therefore any translation or version of the ancient scriptures is NOT the Bible.
Line 2) of mine SHOULD have been written:
“And any particular VERSION of a translation of the ancient scriptures is even less the revealed Word and will of God.”
I was thinking of an oft quoted by me passage from segment 16 of the film class where Dr says: "Now I said that no translation, no translation, let alone a version, no translation may properly be called The Word Of God..." Here Dr indicates that a version is even less the true Word than translations. He later went on to explain that first a translation is produced, and then theologians work it with their flesh and religious bias to produce a version to be released to the public.
I wasn’t trying to be sly. I was just trying to make line (2) closer to the same length as line (1) for ease of reading and comprehension. Now that you pointed this out, I see that the way I wrote it does lead to a miscommunication of what I was trying to say.
With this correction in mind, you may want to alter some of the rest of your post, or maybe not. Please let me know.
At the very least, though, I would suggest that you re-read my post #963 with this correction in mind.
***
Yes, I am altering the definition of Bible, in a sense. This is not all that crazy a thing to try and do, though. It’s done all the time, and when it’s done en masse it leads to an additional usage listed in new dictionaries. It’s how languages evolve.
The reason I am doing this definition alteration is because we are not here looking at how the general population uses the word “Bible,” but are rather looking at how VPW used that word. So, I’m suggesting that if we want to track with what Dr taught then we must determine if he used that word in the standard way or if he altered the definition at some points in his teachings. Context is the key to seeing this.
For him to alter such a thing might be a quirky thing to do. It might normally be a thing that is a wasted effort because no one might be willing to follow suit and add a such usage of “Bible” to their internal dictionaries’ listings.
However, for a leader of a large movement this is less likely to be a wasted effort, at least within the population of followers of such a movement.
Add to this, if it’s true, God being behind the definition alteration and the effort is not wasted at all, and even likely to someday lead to a mass alteration of the definition, which would then demand new dictionaries to no only add the usage to their listings, but maybe even place it in the number one slot.
***
The several items you supplied prove nothing more than Dr (like all people) had the privilege of using slightly differing definitions of the same word at times.
***
You wrote: “Wierwille taught that the true Word of God could be gleaned from "the Bible" by using the keys he taught in PFAL.”
Here it looks like “Bible” is used in the conventional sense, because its flaws are implied by the gleaning process.
Yes, Wierwille taught keys, but that doesn’t preclude the possibility that God inspired him exactly what to teach.
***
You wrote: “He clearly taught that "the Bible" was the Word of God but he qualified that statement by saying that, " no translation or version of the Bible may PROPERLY be called the Word of God." Properly, becasue it was not the original. Clear as a bell what VPW was saying. -- That the Bible ( King James, Geneva, etc) is the revealed Word and Will of God. ---when it is rightly divided.”
Sure, it is, WHEN IT IS RIGHTLY DIVIDED, but not when it is freshly taken off the shelves in a bookstore. And how do we get it rightly divided, and not humanly divided? By God inspiring him exactly what to teach us.
***
You wrote (with my bold fonts): “Mike, PFAL is NOT the Word of God - properly or any other way. But neither can any version or translation of the Bible be PROPERLY called the Word of God. However, casually, the Bible (versions, translations) can be called the Word of God. Wierwille did exactly that.”
Yes, casually. That’s how we started out in PFAL, casually. Some of us hippies may have been more casual than others. But is that how we are to end our studies? No. We are to become masters of the Word. In order to graduate to that level Dr told us to master written PFAL, not our casual KJV Bibles.
***
You wrote : “But PFAL cannot even casually be called the Word of God where the Bible can be, because the Bible was translated from texts that go back to the originals that were ‘God breathed.’”
No. The translations were not done by God’s exact revelation in all places and in all points. The translations were given by the flesh of men and committees. One translation contradicts another. Result: we either have no God-breathed texts, or God supplied our need in written PFAL.
***
You wrote : “PFAL cannot be even casually called the "Word of God" because the evidence shows that it is simply a peice-meal collection of plagairized, stolen, reworked and possibly some original material (some good and some not so good) put together by VPW. It goes back, only to an alleged promise, sealed by an unconfirmed snowstorm.
No, it does not ONLY go back only to that, but also to the benefits thousands of only somewhat careful and persistent students derived and still derive from it.
The evidence you cite was produced by people biased against the truth of PFAL being from God, and refusing to utilize all possible approaches.
You seem to think that God is forbidden to utilize the piece-meal process to get His Word into print? Why do you forbid God that?
If God was involved in inspiring the pieces or parts of the pieces, then it wasn’t theft. God is the owner.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
there is some good things in pfal
as well as religion and science and theologys
eastern religions also contribute to learning
and most especially people from all walks of life
God is not limited to anything in communicating
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
CM,
How do we tell the difference between the good and the bad in religion, science, theology, and eastern religions?
Since you are convinced there is bad in my posting isn’t it logical that there can bad in religion, science, theology, and eastern religions?
There MUST be something that is "all good" that we can use to tell the difference between good and bad in religion, science, theology, and eastern religions.
I think that the "all good" is written PFAL.
What do you think is the “all good” that can be used by anyone to tell the difference between the good and the bad in religion, science, theology, and eastern religions?
If it’s not something that can be put on a table, seen by anyone, readable by anyone, and having some physical weight, then I’m not interested.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
bad is that which enslaves a person
but seen through a different lens it can be turned
unto the pure all things are pure
and that's quite the process to arrive
also to see that all things work together for good for them that love god
It will only be seen by those looking and as God has promised they will find
the all good lies in the hands of God not men
and will be seen by men as He enlightens the eyes
to more then the very little that pfal has to offer
for pfal is limited and has limited itself
by it's own doing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
I was all ready for bed and suddenly remembered another item.
This is something that I’ve posted long ago, but I think not lately at all.
Sometimes for doctrinal purposes I’ll use the audio taped soundtrack of the film class because it’s very similar to the printed record, but the exact wording of the film class stimulates MUCH more memory of readers than the corresponding slightly different print record.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Mike - sorry I misunderstood - You had made a statement after addressing me. Therefore I said that I wasn't referring to all the other threads - referring to things that God wouldn't be happy with.
I'm going now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
"Thus Saith The Lord Statement"#1
Clearly he is not referring to every word without exception, but every word that he has written previously on the subject that he is writing about.So what is Wierwille saying here? That his words in the previous section are the equivalent to scripture? Or that they are true because they line up with what the bible says? It would really be a stretch to suppose that he was saying anything other than his words line up biblically, therefore they are true.
"Thus Saith The Lord Statement"#2
I'd be interested in the broader context here. Is what he wrote previous to this quote Wierwille quoting scripture? Or is it Wierwille speaking on his own? (or claiming to speak by revelation)In both of these statements we have Wierwille very obviously claiming that what he has taught is true. He is considering no other possibility. But is he suggesting that what he is writing can in any way replace, or supercede 'the bible'? If he is saying it, it's not in these two statements.
I've no time to look at any others today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites