What The Hey

Amazing how we all re-write the Word of God. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood ... until a brother or sister in Christ sins against us.

We believe that our marriage is of God. Here today we open up our hearts ... Hmmm ... just who wrote that sappy tune anyway?

Interesting perspective on laides from two well known modern men. I belong to Bridegrooms Anonymous. Whenever I feel like getting married, they send over a lady in a housecoat and hair curlers to burn my toast for me. - Dick Martin Father told me if I ever met a lady in a [very low-cut] dress like yours, I must look her straight in the eyes. - Charles Windsor, Prince of Wales

Oh God - Let's not go there!

I think I have a VHS copy of the AOS production and I was even thinking of copying it onto a DVD just in case something happened to the VHS tape. I don't think being an AOS is really a ridiculous concept, but the whole idea of illustrating the AOS concept by dance certainly is. (Dancing with the Devil? I was almost sure somebody had already thought of that one before.) Just what I always wanted to learn how to do - chicken kick a debul spurt! BTW, wasn't it Taylor O. who animated the amoeba for AOS? I really think the whole AOS production was done more to showcase the WOW Auditorium rather than to "illustrate God's Word regarding every believer as an athlete in the spiritual competition" as per the blurb in the booklet that came with the video. I guess the booklet was to further explain what was being presented in the AOS production. Wasn't the WOW Auditorium completed just shortly before this production? I think it was. TWI probably needed a production like AOS to make us believers think that we didn't waste all our abs on a huge auditorium with absolutely nothing to show for it. In the back of the booklet there is even a blurb by LCM saying to be ready for Athletes II! Gee, I wonder what ever became of AOS II? Oh well, just another one of those things that vaporized with TWI I guess.

I often wondered what debil spurts were in the backward masked copy of AOS. Maybe Mike has mastered AOS to uncover it's secret hidden messages? Oh wait - that's PFAL not AOS!

That all depends on who you are addressing and exactly what one considers the truth to be. Of course, your addressing people of my generation. Most people in my generation consider their point of view as being the truth. But none the less, it merely their point of view and nothing more. While every false and exaggerated claim certainly impacts ones own point of view, it really has no bearing or sway on the truth. Benjamin Franklin said, "Popular opposition to a public measure is no proof of its impropriety, even though the opposition be excited and headed by men of distinction". He also said, "... For there is no accusation so readily believed by knaves, as is the accusation of knavery." The problem you are facing is when you address me and others today, you are also from my generation. My generation was raised on a phylosopy of education known as experimentation. Expermentation postulates there are no absolute truths - there are no absolute values. All of life is just a "sea of relationships" and your individuality is no more real than a wave in the sea. You come and you go, and that is your total existance. And like a wave in the sea, the most important thing is pepetuating yourself. And truth, since it is not an absolute, is redefined as what serves you. It is a tragedy we have left such leadership as a pragmatic generation, that now only lets the end justify the means - and now only provides the candidates for rulership who treat the truth as an enemy and something to be changed - to make their modern desires more convenient. Martin Luther said, "You are not free, you just think you're free." You are free to choose your master, but you are not free. That is the illusion this world peddles - that you are free. Today we have to kid ourselves into thinking we are free. Like the philosopher who said, "I think, therefore I am" we put a hedonistic twist on that - "I think I am free, therefore I should be free." I believe we have a measure of freedom. Every act of men has a measure of freedom injected. We're not biologically controlled - affected yes. There is an ebb and flow in our physical life, but we are not animals controlled by predetermined cycles. We can change anything with a little injection of freedom. You're not free, you just think you are, and there is no capacity for love or trust without freedom. But this generation doesn't know the difference - between loving to be loved, and loving. Even love has become nothing more but an ambiguous word in my generation. Well, if you had an ambiguous word - you are going to go, if there are options, you're going to go with that which is the "party line." The context forces you to choose the latter. If you are already sealed on your opinion and your point of view, then you're certainly not one who is going to be prone to 'stick your neck out'. The early ones though, they were just seeking the truth.

Funny how the same incident happened to me (but I am not talking here about when I was involved in TWI or being kicked out by LCM) but by a pastor of a local church that I attended at one time. I was also very active and involved in that church and I even served in that church for about a year. The following Sunday after the pastor expelled me he was back in the pulpit - he was up in front of his congregation preaching how he spared the flock of God - about how he "saved the sheep" from a "wolf". (Apparently this is a trait that is NOT exclusive to LCM or TWI but also exists in other churches as well.) A person goes through some formal religious or bible training. They then graduate from that institution and someone puts a label on them (they may label them a MOG, a pastor, or something else biblically significant, etc.) and then that person ends up thinking that they are God's gift to the whole entire world. God forbid if someone has a different opinion or point of view then theirs on something. Eventually they will call you in for a "counseling session" and if you aren't willing to comply or meet their demands then they really have no other option except to get rid of you. Apparently you're of no value to them otherwise. Just who do these people think they are? I certainly know what they are not. They certainly aren't pastors or men of God. They are nothing but a bunch of clowns imposing their will on others. I am probably being too polite calling them clowns. The truth is they aren't anything but crooks! They just use people for their own ends and purposes. They certainly have no intention or any desire to change themselves, and a clown who refuses to change is nothing but a crook - they are no better than a crook! Well, what could one expect to find in a circus anyway? Just clowns and con-artists working a crowd. Some even have the nerve to call themselves a "household" or the family of God. You don't kick someone out of your family. A REAL family doesn't do that. Who ever heard of anything so preposterous or ludicrous! You wouldn't expect that kind of behavior from a real pastor or a man of God, but one could expect it from a clown. I am not saying this out of anger or bitterness toward any of them - but saying it out of sadness. What is so sad is that I honestly looked up to some of them. Now I can't even stand to look at them. But in some sick, perverted, twisted way they need that lie. They will continue to hang onto it for dear life because they find comfort in the lie. That lie makes them feel secure. It makes them feel significant and it even makes them feel spiritually superior to others. Some perhaps will say, "Well, that is just your opinion". Maybe to them it does sound kind of "whacko", but the truth is we all need to feel accepted. We all need to feel significant and secure. We all need to feel accepted, significant and secure just like we all need food and air to breath and to live. The only question is - where does one get their source or their sense of feeling accepted, significant and secure? Does it come from believing the truth - or does it come from believing something else? It's something for us to think very seriously about, because we are all susceptible to believing the lie - especially when it makes us feel secure, significant and superior over another brother or sister in Christ.

That's supposed to be an original thought? People said the exact same thing of Moses. When he parted the Red sea so they could escape from the Egyptians they were thankful for him and were even praising him. The next day the exact same people were grumbling, complaining and even conspiring against him. One can easily put just about anybody's name (or any system for that matter) in the above phrase one had put all their trust in - and then they feel that person or that system let them down. It only goes to prove that people really haven't changed too much - even after thousands and thousands of years of their so-called spiritual enlightenment.

The sin of stealing is no different than murder/rape/mayhem to God, because with God the sin of stealing (even a cracker) is just as big (not smaller) than murder/rape/mayhem, etc. There is no difference in sin to God, (although there is to men) because even a cracker stealer is just as repugnant to God as a murderer, rapist, etc. The kind of thinking your talking about is essentially the foundation for, and the twisted logic and reason behind why lawmakers are passing laws and giving light and easy sentances to repeat offenders and hardened criminals. In court, a murderer can be sentanced to serve a lifetime or perhaps even be given two or more lifetime prison sentances, but in reality they end up only serving a couple years in prison and then are out on parole. This is not really a topic or an issue where TWI failed. Doctrinally TWI was and is correct on the subject, but many people in TWI took their new life and grace and freedom they found in Christ as a license to sin. Now that "those people" are starting to find out by experience that God's grace is NOT a license to sin and there are still consequences to sin (and the "God's grace is a license to sin" idea never really worked out for them practically) they are blaming TWI for what they initially failed to recognize and put into practice for themselves. Here is an excerpt from: "The Life-style of a Believer" p.14 by: Victor P. Wierwille: ... The argument that man will sin, and that it is the duty of the state for its own sake and for the sake of the innocent third parties, and even for the offender's own sake, to take precautions so that as little evil may result as possible, is an erroneous concept of logic and is unethical. It is never the duty of the state to make the way of transgressors safe and easy. The action of every state, when it acts, must be to restrain and to punish, never to organize or license vice, or crime, and still less to derive a revenue from it on what they refer to as the grounds of expediency. Make punishment follow closely after the crime. Extended judgement in justice is usually fraught with error. Not only do they take "God's grace as a license to sin" as an excuse to continue in sin, but they also take it and use it as an excuse for them to stop thinking. Not thinking. Boy oh boy - that alone can lead someone into all sorts and kinds of trouble.

Here is another quote that isn't truly a VPW'ism (this quote is found in Lifelines on p.115): Teaching the Word should be like a woman's dress: long enough to cover the subject and short enough to keep it interesting. The original quote wasn't refering to the bible or to "the Word" though. The original quote was: A talk (or speech) should be like a woman's dress, long enough to cover the subject - etc. The source of the quote is unknown and there have been variations on it, i.e. Your dresses should be tight enough to show you're a woman and loose enough to show you're a lady. - Edith Head I don't think VPW intentionally plagarized that saying anymore than Edith Head did. I think it is something he read or heard somewhere and then modified it with the intention to inspire people to move the Word more or to become better ministers. Essentially I think that is what he did with a lot of things he taught - he took things from others, modified them and made improvements on them so they would fit according to the "accuracy of the Word", and then taught them to us. It's sort of sad though that one has to go back and rely on the world for a source of inspiration, but he probably thought by doing so he was getting through to us. Adam was the only man who, when he said a good thing, knew that nobody had said it before him. —Mark Twain

All the "Word-Faith" churches (not just TWI) past this 10 step test and end up falling victim/prey to what you are attempting to define as a "Toxic Faith" system. (Of course, only my system [church] is non-toxic, dontcha know.)

I wasn't attempting to imply that. "Enemies" was probably a poor word choice. "Critic's would have been more accurate. Either way, I think both men are/were pace setters in their field. I don't believe anyone can say with complete certainty VPW's biblical research was of lesser quality than Scott's. The truth of the matter is, I think VPW purposely held back many biblical things he knew - speaking primarily from a biblical scholars viewpoint - and he probably thought that he was doing us "lay people" a big favor by doing so. I came to realize this fact early on in TWI, but I realize now how that may have hurt the minsitry of TWI more than it helped. I came to realize this when I saw examples of Dr. VPW's early biblical research on display at TWI Historical Museum in Sidney, OH. Unlike Dr. Scott, VPW was not teaching that particular body of biblical knowledge to us or making it publically known, other than perhaps he was merely putting it "out on display" for us to view. For example, VPW often cited biblical passages that were: "Literal translation according to Usage", but did VPW ever go into any real depth with us "lay-people" on exactly what these things meant, or how he arrived at those conclusions? Does it sound like I am elevating VPW's biblical research above Dr. Gene Scotts? I certainly hope I'm not. I am just stating what I believe to be the truth - that is, VPW purposely held back many of those "biblical scholarly" things merely for the sake of the "spoudazo"ing of the Word of God. As VPW states in TBTMS on p.168, "Spoudazo, "study" is a derivative of speudo which is the root form. Another term for "root word" could be the "least common denominar" - the word in it's simplest form, that which is common to all other words derived from it. There is no word from which spuedo was derived, and therefore it can be considered the least common denominator, the root. Let us first examine all the verses of Scripture where the word speudo is used to see the foundation upon which the related words or derivitives are built. Luke 2:16: And they came with haste [speudo], and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. When the angels informed the shepherds that they should go to Bethlehem, the shepherds didn't let any grass grow under their feet. They went immediately, right away, pronto. Time was involved. That is the essence of the word speudo." The problem TWI ran into I believe is, a whole lot of that speudo HASTE was made without first laying a sound biblical FOUNDATION. Of course, in the process of speudo we ended up thinking we were laying a sound biblical foundation. But we all know what happens to a foundation that is built soley on haste, right?

You'ld want Betty Butterfield to visit TWI? I wouldn't even wish that one on her. Her testimony sounds like many who left. Betty Butterfield's Testimony

I believe Dr. Gene Scott's reply on the matter would be precisely the same thing Dr. Victor P. Wierwille said to us many, many years ago. It would go down exactly like this: These self-righteous preachers will not name me as a source because they condemn me for smoking a cigar. There's nothing in the bible that says, "Don't smoke a cigar." Don't talk to me about the health risks until you tell me that you quit eating sugar and quit going around looking like a whale ... This ain't a cigar, this is my FREEDOM STICK! It's to tell all of you - you don't have to quit living to become a Christian and you don't have to become an idiot to be a Christian! Don't park your brain at the church door just to become a Christian!! (Excerpt taken from one of Dr. Gene Scott's messages; verbatim. What's more remarkable is Dr. Scott happens to be talking on the subject of plagiarism at the same time; this also being pretty much verbatim:) I had a preacher order some tapes ... they sent a letter. We didn't get the order ... saying you got to send them to me, I'm in a time pattern. It was pretty apparent what he wanted. He needed these tapes because he's got to have them to get his message ready and if the order got misplaced he doesn't know where to go with his next message. I'm going to start selling tapes to preachers that do exactly what these libraries do to me. They'll give me permission to quote, but plagiarism is a crime. It's a tragedy that so much in the Christian world we have preachers that don't have the ethics of an agnostic, atheistic professor in a University! I'm going to send them [the preachers] what they [the libraries] send me. OK. You can have it for your private research, but you can't put it on display. And if you put it on display you have to write us a letter and tell us how you're going to use it and how it's going to be displayed ... then we will tell you how to how to give us credit. Now when preachers start ordering tapes from me ... I mean, I had a person tell me there's a pastor in Dallas that records me every Sunday. Then he studies it all week long and condenses it down for his sermon the following Sunday. That is a crime. That is simply stealing. WELL IT ALL COMES FROM GOD AND HE OWNS IT! Well then, give me your bank account because my bible says the Earth is the Lord's and everything that's in it! Get off of that!! ... I don't mind giving credit. "Introduction to the Old Testament" by: Roland Kenneth Harrison. [spoken while Dr. Scott is holding "Introduction to the Old Testament" by: Roland Kenneth Harrison.) I didn't learn that kind of ethic in bible school, I learned it at Stanford. They threw people out for taking credit for intellectual product as though it were they're own. But these same self-righteous preachers will never name me as a source because I smoke a cigar! It certainly is remarkable to note how one readily sees the same parallels between Dr. Gene Scott's enemies as with VPW's. Why? Because it's the same old lousy accusations made by self-righteous religious people all the time. They can't even come up with an "original" lousy accusation to make against someone! (Now there's plagiarism for you!) But his enemies had made the charge, and with some success among the populace; for no kind of accusation is so readily made or so easily believed by knaves as the accusation of knavery. - Benjamin Franklin

Has anyone here ever seen or heard of (the late) Dr. Gene Scott? He earned his Ph.D in Philosophies of Education at California's prestigious Stanford University in 1957. Lately I've seen a number of his teachings/sermons on late night public TV which I think is broadcast from the Los Angeles University Cathedral. The LA University Cathedral is a congregation of 15,000 members in the greater Los Angeles area, and supposedly is the largest Protestant church in downtown Los Angeles. (That number beats the attendance at any of TWI's ROA festivals.) According to the biography on the drgenescott.com website, Dr. Scott wrote and published some 20 books, logged over 70,000 hours of teaching played world-wide daily, and was immersed in a multitude of activities. He was a philosopher, artist, philanthropist, philatelist, equestrian and bibliophile. VPW didn't even come close to publishing half that amount (even if people here believe VPW plagarized) and who knows exactly how many hours VPW logged teaching the bible. Dr. Scott could write (and also interpret) a number of ancient biblical languages: i.e. Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, etc. From what I've seen on late night TV, Dr. Scott usually has written out a verse from scripture in in a number of biblical languages on a whiteboard (maybe there is a verse written in 4 or 5 different languages) then he spends the rest of the broadcast explaining the scripture in each language word by word (sometimes even letter by letter) comparing the scripture in various biblical languages. The only thing is (at least this is my impression) when he is done teaching one's not really quite sure what the bible says in English let alone any of the other ancient languages - but he does appear to be very well versed/educated in all of them. The way he teaches and presents biblical material though, it makes me wonder if he ever met VPW. He certainly comes off as being the leading top notch expert in all of the biblical languages. Any of the bibliophiles here have any opinion about him? His web site is located here: Dr. Gene Scott

If the bible declared God was something other than Spirit then it would say so. There are only two realms, the spiritual and the natural. The natural [flesh or senses] realm was created by God. God is not of or in the natural or senses realm, nor is He a created being. Making God out to be something other than Spirit is making God something "natural" or something created. Well, I suppose one could make their God into an "angel" (as angels are spirit beings) but angels were "created" and are therefore less and lower than God. See Hebrews. "For verily he [Jesus] took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." Hebrews 2:16. That verse says Jesus isn't even an angel - and if an angel is a lesser spirit being than God Almighty, then Jesus can't be the Supreme Spirit being [God] if Jesus isn't even a lesser spirit - an angel! You said you read no other place in the bible of something that God can not do other than lie. Read James 1:13. James 1:13 says that God cannot be tempted with evil. So not only is God incapable of lying, He can not be tempted with evil. The problem I see I am running into is with those who haven't even read the bible to begin to know what it says, much less saying anything about running into those who want to read into the Word of God to make it say something else other than what is written.

Hmmmmm... how did I miss this? Take another look at this verse, but this time let's read EXACTLY what is written. Here is the KJV of Matthew 4:10: Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. The last part of this verse of scripture does not say him only shalt thou worship. It says, him only shalt thou serve. The last word in this verse is the word serve, it's not the word "worship". The bible does not say one is only to worship God, however it does say that: him [God] only shalt you serve. One serving is not the same thing as one worshipping. Again, read EXACTLY what is written rather than reading into what is written. So much wrong theology can be cleared up simply by one reading exactly what is written - and we haven't even gotten around yet to addressing the few scriptures that were intentionally forged in the KJV to say Jesus is God, i.e. like that one there in Timothy which says that: "God was manifest in the flesh." If you are already running into difficulty reading EXACTLY what is written in the bible, no doubt your going to have greater difficulty dealing with those few scriptures that were intentionally forged to say Jesus is God.

No, one doesn't have to conclude Jesus was a liar just because he was a human or because he was a man. Again you are making erroneous assumptions because your are drawing conclusions that are not based on scripture. The "men" refered to in Numbers 23 is refering to men who are partakers of [we share fully in] Adam's flesh and blood. Jesus on the other hand, only took part, he was not a partaker (he did not share fully) of Adam's flesh and blood like you and I - rather he, Jesus, only took part of Adam's flesh. The part Jesus did not fully partake of in was of Adam's blood. In fact, the scripture in Hebrews 2:14 explains this further and it explains it quite clearly: "For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he [refering to Jesus] also himself likewise took part of the same..." All men (with the exception of Jesus Christ) are descendants of Adam, and as such we all partake of Adam's flesh and blood. The Greek word for partake in this verse in Hebrews 2:14 is "koinoneo" which means to "share fully". All of Adam's descendents (including you and me) share fully in Adam's flesh and blood and likewise in Adam's sinful nature. But Hebrews 2:14 says that Jesus only "took part". Those two English words are just one word in the Greek, the word "metecho", which means to, "take only a part, not all". Jesus took "some part" but he did not take all; He did not partake, koinoneo, share fully like you and I in the sinfulness of Adam's blood. However, according to the flesh Jesus Christ was exactly like you and I, and just like Adam. That is why scripture calls Jesus Christ the second Adam. But the life of the flesh is in the blood (read Leviticus 17:11) and the life of the flesh in the blood that was in Jesus Christ did not come by the way of Adam - (like your's and mine) rather it came by way of the supernatural conception by the Holy Spirit, God. Scripturally speaking, the sinfulness in man is in the blood. The people of the old testament understood this when they killed the passover lamb and ate it's flesh. That sacrifice of the passover lamb "cleansed them" but this was only a temporary cleansing as the children of Israel were commanded to celebrate that event annually. Jesus Christ's sacrifice of himself as the passover lamb is uniquely significant, as the sacrifice of himself, of his flesh and blood took care of man's sin problem once and for all. But men still make Jesus' sacrifice of no effect by keeping of the law mainly through their ignorance of Jesus' accomplished work. Unlike your blood and mine, Jesus Christ's blood was totally and completely pure. This is a fact recorded in the Word of God. Just because his blood was completely and totally pure does not make him God, because God is not flesh and blood. God is Spirit (John 4:24). In the bible Jesus Christ is called the second or the last Adam. God is never called Adam anywhere or at anyplace in the bible, however his son Jesus Christ is! Jesus Christ, the second [the last] Adam fulfilled all the legal requirements for our redemption and salvation because God could not do that, but his son could. This was Jesus Christ's purpose for coming into the world.

Well you are getting very close, but figures of speech are not merely one's own personal opinion. E.W. Bullinger, perhaps the greatest authority on figures of speech used in the bible would agree that figures of speech are not someones personal opinion. (Read the introduction of "Figures of Speech Used in The Bible by E.W. Bullinger for further insight on the matter.) Unfortunately Bullinger gives more credence to figures of speech being the key to true interpretation than what it honestly deserves. While figures of speech are certainly a main key to interpreting the scriptures, they are not the "root" or the only main key to the scriptures interpretation. To quote Bullinger in regards to Figures of Speech used in the Bible, "It is not open to any one to say of this or that word or sentance, "This is a figure," according to his own fancy, or to suit his own purpose. We are dealing with a science whose laws and their working are known." (From: Figures of Speech Used In The Bible, E.W. Bullinger. p.vi) There are other sciences that one can apply to the Word of God that are just as valid as "Figures of Speech". For example there are the idioms and the Eastern customs of the bible that one must fully consider as well. It's when all these various sciences harmonize on the scriptures where one is getting the closest to drawing the intended truth from the Word of God ... One very common figure of speech used in the bible is the figure "condescencio" - the figure of speech used in the ascribing of human passions, actions and attributes to God. It is the literalizing of this figure which has only led men into the common error of believing that God can turn Himself into and actually become human flesh.

WRONG. Go back and read Numbers 23:19 again. But this time, read EXACTLY what is written rather than 'reading into' what is written. One of the first steps in rightly dividing the Word of God is to read exactly what is written instead of reading into the Word of God. This verse does not say God is not like a man. This scripture distinctly says God is NOT a man. This scripture doesn't say God is "like" men anymore than is says God is not "like" men, because the word "like" does NOT appear in that verse to begin with. And why should I care whether you agree or you disagree with my grammar when this isn't a grammer issue to begin with? Grammar deals with syntax and the rules that govern language. So why are you making this an issue over grammar when this is an issue on reading exactly what is written - it's not about grammar or a grammar issue. First of all, it is not my grammar. (The correct spelling of the word is grammar BTW, - it's not: grammer.) Rather, this is an issue on someone reading and being able to read exactly what is written. Of course you may not like what is written, and perhaps that maybe why you are trying to change the Word of God into something other than what is written. Now you may disagree with what is written (that is your privilage) but it is God's Word you are disagreeing with - it's not my "grammer" or anybody elses "grammer" for that matter. I will give you credit on this point, but only this point. You are correct in saying the word "THAT" in this verse is extremely important, as it tells us at least these three things. It tells us THAT (I'm repeating this again so you don't miss any of it) 1. That God is not a man, and that, 2. He, God does not lie. It also reveals an even deeper truth - specifically one about men, that is, 3. Unlike God, men DO lie. The reason God is NOT a man is because God is NOT a created being, nor can He ever become a created being. (If God would be created, then God ceases to be a God who has always existed as God Himself - a God who always was.) Man, on the other hand, IS a created being. The "Jesus is God" doctrine makes God into a man. This scripture tells us and reveals to us that men lie. (Some men do intentionally, some not intentionally. Whether it is done intentionally or not, the truth is, men still lie.) Since men DO lie, the doctrine of the Trinity becomes a lie as it "makes God into a man" who is also a liar. The trinitarians have done nothing except make God into a man who is therefore a liar. The bible, God's Word does speak of and about a god who is a liar. If you think he's the one with the truth, then you've got some serious problems that you must be dealing with. <- There's the trinity for you.

First of all, who says; "God is NOT a man" is taking things out of context and twisting and manipulating scripture? This is an unfair assumption you are making. Moreover, it is an extremely narrow (and dangerous) assumption for one to be making. One of the first rules to proper biblical interpretation and in rightly dividing the Word of God is to simply read exactly what is written. What is written in this particular scripture is that God is not a man. It is also written that He does not lie. Actually this scripture is revealing a number of truths about God - not just a single truth about Him. This one scripture reveals at least these following truths: 1. That God is not a man, and that, 2. He, God does not lie. It also reveals an even deeper truth - specifically one about men, that is, 3. Unlike God, men DO lie. I wouldn't rely too heavily on the Nicene creed (or any other creed that was ever written by men) as being the final authority on the true nature of God. As sincere as those creeds might be they are fraught with lies, seeing (and being) that they all come from the lips, and likewise the pens of men. You have God's Word (not mine) on that. (For further explanation, see the truths - specifically #3 above). Most biblical men (scholars) already have a difficult time with the Word of God (bible) in regards to exactly what is/was written and what exactly is being said; without further interjecting their own creeds and doctrines into what is/was written. It's the same basic problem that often obstructs and impedes one's spiritual growth, i.e. that of man bringing God's Word down to their level rather than men desiring to bring themselves up to the level of the Word of God. What we must constantly realize is this aspect of men will always be there. It exists not merely and only in the greatest biblical scholar of whom we give credence to, but as well as in the most devout and sincere Christian believer.

Remarkable how TWI always refered to the believer's tithe as "Abundant Sharing" but what it turned out to be in reality was nothing more than abundant giving - it wasn't about sharing. Not real sharing I would say. Real sharing is a two-way street. That is something that is always implied in sharing with someone. You know, most Christian's love to give but the truth of the matter is they hate to share. The reason most Christians hate to share is because that often times only opens them up and makes them vulnerable to the other party. Since when did TWI ever want to be vulnerable in that way, or ever want to open themselves up to that kind of exposure? It's just another thing for us to think through more seriously. Later.

Of course we are to believe those "some people" that you are refering to do not have their own standards or tools that also bias their results whenever they examine VPW's biblical materials [research]- right? OH NO - how could we ever get the idea and think that was even possible? If that's the defense you are making and are justifing, then you ought to rewrite your bible so it reads, "Study to show thyself approved unto men". At least that way your bible will be more accurate, because that is what men do and is the end result when one examines somebody else's biblical workmanship rather than the Word of God. This argument about there "being a bias here which will affect one's results" comes off sounding much like the familiar cheesy sci-fi dialog between Anakin Skywalker and Chancellor Palpatine from Star Wars III. Anakin Skywalker: "The Jedi use their power [knowlege] for good. Chancellor Palpatine: "Good is a point of view, Anakin. The Sith and the Jedi are similar in almost every way, including their quest for greater power [knowledge]." Anakin Skywalker: "The Sith rely on their passion for their strength. [knowledge.] They think inward, only about themselves. Chancellor Palpatine: "And the Jedi don't?" Many have already heard and have already learned this basic lesson: Knowledge is Power. But as Chancellor Palpatine vividly reminds us all: Remember back to your early teachings. All who gain power are afraid to lose it - even the Jedi. Unfortunately few ever remember their early biblical teachings, one of which is: "Man's basic spiritual problem is the accuracy and integrity of God's Word." People are more intent rather they are far more content with putting their microscope on another man's deeds and also on his biblical workmanship rather than turning their microscope on the Word of God for themselves. Why? Because the integrity and accuracy of God's Word is not their primary concern (being man's basic spiritual problem as it is) but rather the writings, the works, and the deeds of another man are their primary concerns. Go back to your first bible lesson. The first bible lesson is simply: "Read exactly what is written - don't read into what is written." I remember how I often quoted John 20:31: "But these are written that ye might know that Jesus is the Christ ... etc. " Now that sounds pretty accurate I'd say. In fact, quoting that scripture exactly like this will come off sounding a million percent biblically accurate to the 99.9% highly educated "some people" you say have examined "VPW's biblical materials" or PFAL - or whatever else VPW did. I know it does, because this is the type of biblical accuracy that is good enough for them. I hear it and see it in their biblical examiniation [in their biblical exegesis] all the time. Their exegisis is usually this, which is: What difference does it make? That is not the accuracy of John 20:31. Go back to your early biblical teaching and "read exactly what is written". What John 20:31 accurately says is this: "But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ ... etc." I am not expecting a standing ovation from anyone here on this extremely brief example of biblical accuracy in respect to: "reading exactly what is written". Certainly not here. Rather I am expecting that these "some people" will only respond with this: Whooping big deal! What difference does that make? (Now were have we heard that argument before?) What's the big difference in just one little word - in knowing Jesus is the Christ or in believing Jesus is the Christ? Because unto men knowlege is highly important - especially in respect and in regards to some future knowlege a man might gain; because to men: Knowlege is Power. (We've all been hearing and even been responding to that lousy teaching for decades!) For example: It is highly important to men exactly where you got your biblical knowledge, exactly who you got your biblical knowledge from, and that you properly acknowledge [credit] those from who you got your bible knowledge. Should one miss it on any of those points, those who pride themselves on knowledge will be the first to point it out. The threads and topics that are on GSC are constantly centered on these exact subjects and is proof enough of it. But what does God say in His Word that is the important - that is, if accuracy is ever to be of any importance to anyone with any biblical knowledge at all? Is it knowing - or is it believing? Perhaps I should re-phrase that. "What's the most important thing to you?" Whatever your answer to that question is will also determine whether one is seeking to please men or if one is seeking to please God. Because for most men, knowledge is what pleases them because to man knowledge is power and it gives men a "sense of power" over other men who don't have the same knowledge". To briefly summarize this paragraph: Knowlege pleases men. Believing pleases God. My only question to you is this: Who do you want to please the most? Man or God? (Big hint: See answer above.) Getting back to John 21:25 that I quoted earlier. In irony I was attempting to show someone here how the early disciples must have been highly incompetent in the proper documenting and the recording of the works of Jesus Christ. The irony behind it is, that would indeed be the truth - that is, IF knowledge of Jesus and the bible is all that is important to somebody and all that is available to someone. Why do I say that? Because as the disciple John declared regarding the Lord Jesus Christ, "... the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." This disciple of the Lord would indeed be a liar, if knowledge of the Lord (or the bible if you want to put it that way) is all that was ever available to the Christian. Perhaps this humble disciple of Jesus Christ realized something else - something far greater than a mere senses knowledge of Jesus Christ. I have heard the typical witness of most Christins as some of us were the typical Christian in witnessing the Lord unto others. Christians have often said to me like they often say to the unsaved: Do you know the Lord? Have you ever heard that one before? But how many Christians do you know have ever said to someone, (I'm not being critical of them - I'm just pointing out this fact) Do you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? Probably very few, if any. But the early apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ witnessed like that. Why isn't it like that today? Because today believing is not as important to people as is their knowledge of the scriptures and the bible or some other theological hang-up that they seem to have. To most knowledge is their primary objective - it's not believing on the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Truthfully when it comes to believing most people now only want to argue about it anyway - that is, whether if it's a law or not. Why do they want to bother with the arguing and the debate on believing? Because for them, something else other than believing {i.e. knowledge} is far much more important. I'll just end by reiterating what VPW accurately stated to both you and I many years ago. "Tell me what you believe about the Lord Jesus Christ and I'll tell you how far you will go spiritually". I'm thankful VPW never said, "Tell me what you know about Jesus Christ, etc." because when it comes to the Lord Jesus Christ you and I will never know-it-all. At least not in this life - as the whole world could not contain the books that should be written as the disciple of the Lord declared many years before us. But today we seem to run into a bunch of know-it-all's. People want to tell you what they "know" - whether it's about JESUS, about VPW, about TWI, or whatever else it is they think is highly important for you to know and what they think you ought to "know" about. There are some people who highly INSIST on it! But "what-ever-it-is" that you know is somehow always irrelevant to them - unless it happens to fit their agenda. Funny how that works - how some people want to impose their knowledge on others and then go away thinking that somehow they did the true God a really great big whooping favor by it.