What The Hey

Since no one else has said it yet.....

Why look hard for the pfal tapes when BETTER materials are out there?

What makes you think I had to look hard for them?

If you want a one-stop-shop for classes, there's fewer places better than the first place vpw stole the classes from.

Go to BG Leonard's group.

http://www.ctcoftexas.com/

That's a place if you want some "holy spirit" education.

You mean, Leonard's - Gifts of the Spirit class?

Get with the program WW if you're out to promote BG Leonard's stuff.

Comparing PFAL with his class is like comparing an apple to an orange.

BG's group refers to the manifestations of holy spirit as being: Gifts of the Spirit -- and --- that's a big H and big S, not a little h. and little s.

When it comes to the holy spirit field and educating others, apparently some people aren't as educated as they think.

If your preference is for "Bible study", all the best stuff from "vpw's" class is right out of EW Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible."

You can buy the book, or get a free download from online.

I don't PERSONALLY know of a book that's the equivalent of Stiles' book that vpw ripped off, but there's a LOT more books on the field since vpw stole Stiles' book. I'm sure you can find what you need commercially.

From: Rev. Leonard's foreword to his book GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT:

"One day God spoke to me. "If thou wilt wait patiently before me, I will give thee the revelation concerning that which is written in my Word touching these things; the revelation my people need to bring them out of their chaos and confusion." I believed God. For months I waited before His presence in solitude. During those wonderful days, He revealed the truth to me concerning the gifts of the Spirit. As He did, these things were proven by acting upon the knowledge thus received, and by examining the results in light of His Word."

So now we know exactly where VPW heard and learned this! If this is where you advise one to get their "holy spirit" education, to be fair, one should also wonder what gas pumps with snow on them BG Leonard also saw.

well my goodness, aren't you the little drama queen!

that was quite a bit of histrionics for someone who didn't post much of any content...

Well, don't end up hitting your head on the ceiling darling.

OR....the external manifestation in the senses world of the internally reality of damage incurred as a result of contamination by twi involvement...(aka being an arse hole)

It`s an infection some never overcome :(

I'm beginning to see the only thing people ever get here is a permanent case of irritable-bowl-syndrome.

No wonder some people here are always so cranky.

It's gonna take some real strong bleach to remove a lot of those "brown stains" don't'ja know.

.........

are you referring to the "brown stains" that twi made on christianity?

Are you kidding me? Are you EVEN ready yet for #1?

Well hang on tight! Get ready to s h i t your pants!!

Here comes the most terrifying, the most spectacular, the most amazing story yet to tell and post about on GSC of what went on in TWI!

(Like somebody's really got something "new" to talk about.)

Boy. 'It' just keeps on getting deeper and deeper and deeper in here all the time.

It just seems.. if one views another's opinion as toxic and despicable, and conditions reach an impasse with no hope of any kind of reasonable reconciliation, what other option is there?

Well, you know what they say about opinions don't you?

(Opinions are like a**holes. Everybody's got one and they all stink!)

Reasonable reconcilliation?

I'm sure that is supposed to happen when people insist upon at, and end up on each other.

To properly quote WW:

If this is what a "Christian" can think and say, I can see why there's plenty of people with conscience and compassion who avoid or leave Christianity.

This is a stain on Christianity.

It's gonna take some real strong bleach to remove a lot of those "brown stains" don't'ja know.

What is the bible today may not be all the scripture that was God breathed...some books, parts, words may have been added, or left out completely.

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that should be written" John 21:25

I consider a large part of what we were taught in twi was twisted and spiritually bankrupt.

Just who are the: "we that were taught in TWI" that you are referring to?

Consider first that whatever you are referring to all (without exception) largely depends on: just who taught who, and just who taught what.

What may have been twisted and become spiritually bankrupt certainly has nothing at all (without exception) to do with what is written.

We were fed a big messy pot of congealed goo doctrines that were either invented or stolen in many cases, by old dear vic. Who knows if any were authoritative sources, Cummins, vp et al, were sloppy in their workmanship, veepee often in a Dramboui haze, not to mention what was taught was mixed with a constant sprinkling of manipulative coercion and control tactics, all care of an ego driven, paunchy old fart, who got off on money, power and serial sexual deviancy....nice mix!

I am sure this line of reasoning makes you "feel" significant, because here you can parrot what has already been "parrotted" by countless others who came before you. Being able to squawk among the biggest "squawkers" here must certainly make you feel very significant.

Of course we all have these "lies" we must tell ourselves to make us feel good about ourselves and to look "real good" before others. Some lies even look better and are more believable than others. If this is your source to where you derive your feelings for significance and importance, then you will continue to hold onto those lies like it was "your daily bread."

We all need to start over and rework EVERYTHING..

So far this is the only thing you and I agree on, but it all really depends on what the source is for "your daily bread".

I can drink some beer tonight to be sure there is plenty of p i s s for your Wheaties in the morning WTH.

WTF??

I suppose you were trying to say something important and worthwhile? Well, just don't wet all over yourself in the process.

really?

it's been a walk of deception, for a long, long time..

what would you do, if you woke up one morning, and came to the realizaton that everything that you thought you believed was just plain wrong..

That all depends on what it is you're believing - or maybe what you're not believing. (Or are you leading this topic into another thread on believing?)

I'm sorry to see the derailing of whether JC was mentioned or not. I hear a story of a man who wanted to do what was godly.

I listened to this today, and my head is spinning.

Then maybe you should quit running around the block with these crack pots.

I wish I was able to hear this 21 years ago, but I'm not sure it would have changed anything for me. Only God knows. I remember hearing about Ralph and John's letter, but I was told not to read it or I would be possessed like they are. I am baffled that I believed that. I'm sorry I thought they were possessed back then.

I remember going to the advanced class that year and hearing people whisper "Ralph D left the ministry." We knew it meant something. If only I knew the half of it. I never heard Passing of the Patriarch until I came to GSC. I didn't leave TWI until December 2002. I am convinced Craig made TWI even a bigger cult than VPW did. I known a lot of people who would benefit from hearing this. It really tied up a lot of loose ends for me.

Ralph D. apparently left long before his body did. It just took awhile for his body to catch up.

Obviously Ralph is a man of honor, and he did what he could to make things right without putting his family in harm's way. God speed to him and his family. Thank you for sharing your story.

Oh B.S. He is still running around the block calling "so-and-so" a "possesso" just like the rest of them --- and you still believe these are MOG who teach "The Word" and the way of peace? Give me a fr**king break!

He didn't say he was the only one ... and he was not the savior ... who was saved? He confronted some people, but TWI was not "saved". They continued with biz as usual. The bad guys kept everything, Ralph went out and started over. He didn't even try to glom on to the many that left .. unless he is starting a new ministry I haven't heard of.

What part are you saying was incorrect Hey? Was Ralph not part of the Yak twig? Did he not write those letters? Were people not told to not read the adultery paper?

Just try to be a little more specific on what you think Ralph said that was a lie. Or describe a little better these "underhanded machinations" please.

What I am saying is I trust these ex-TWI leaders and what they have to say about each other and about the events that happened "back then" as much as I would trust a 3-dollar bill. Unless you are saying none of them are holding any animosity toward each other at all today. Oh no.

I think Ralph cut to the heart of the matter in the way he confronted leaders. TWI excelled in hypocrisy – and used the name of Jesus Christ like a veneer over their agenda. Makes me think of what Jesus said in Luke 6:46 Why do you call me Lord, Lord and do not do what I say. What Ralph did was call them on that very issue [not doing what the Lord says to do]. They wanted to cover up the adultery, lies, abuse of power, etc, - and Ralph was basically saying that behavior was not kosher with Jesus Christ...TWI was always weak on dealing with sin - and another sweet sermon on Jesus was not the quick fix for the problems of TWI. Just look at how much Jesus confronted hypocrisy in the gospels.

Bullsh**. The Jesus I know also had his hands quite full with hypocrisy and betrayal within his own circle of friends. That Judas fella --- boy, what a wonderful guy he certainly must have been. But somehow we are to believe Ralph D. isn't like any of "these guys" --- especially with his "naming names" and finger pointing and all that here now -- so he certainly must have the correct and real answers to everything that went wrong in TWI. (Funny --- he certainly isn't the first and the only ex-TWI leader we've come across who thinks that way of themselves!)

Excuse me, but I've been around the block quite a few times already not to realize what is happening. I know full well when someone is playing politics and using underhanded machinations to make themselves appear and come off to others as "the savior" of the day. (You can save it for yourself, Bxzx. - where x=o. )

Who says we need any hands?

Of course I am. The claim was about THAT avenue of learning-that it came from the works of other people. If it did NOT come from the work of other people, there would be no plagiarism.

Just what makes you think it wasn't VPW's work to start with and they borrowed from him?

What proof do you have it wasn't VPW's work to begin with?

Of course, you have to pit VPW against those that he studied the Word of God with to create this "psuedo-rivalry" amongst themselves to make that "psuedo-charge" of plagiarism stick. Yes, it is all clear to us now. Here they are gathered around the table folks with their bibles out studying God's Word together --- and now they are arguing with each other over who initially came up with the characters: Henry Boloko, Maggie Muggins, Johnny Jumpup, Snowball Pete amongst a lot of other things ...

BTW, an inventor can improve upon an existing invention and it is still his invention and that invention belongs to him. I am specifically speaking of the improvement which is that persons invention and he isn't under any legal obligation to give credit to the original inventor. (Oh, but I guess it doesn't work quite that way in written published works does it? Then someone must have really goofed-up when they insisted on changing the rules.) Better solutions always require a knowledge of a previous body of work - whether it be technology, a published work, etc. Whatever the previous body of work consists of, it is usually and normally accepted to be: "common knowledge". The "better solution" however is not.

...

If you're learning something that is UNKNOWN, then you until you learn it, ZERO people on the Earth know it. We can all count to zero.

If there are people who ALREADY know it, even ONE person, then it is not UNKNOWN. Therefore, if he claimed to learn something "as it had not been known since the first century", then he's saying that no person alive knows it, which means there's no authors WITH BOOKS IN PRINT for him to learn from (alongside the other readers of the books, alongside the people the authors taught personally....) Some people consider legitimate issues, and pretend they're not.

Of course you are only addressing one avenue of one's ability to learn. Here's the avenue you are overlooking:

"But I certify you brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11,12)

What exactly did Paul mean when he said .. "I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it? ... " Paul must have either read the wrong books and/or listened to the wrong instructors then if the only avenue to learn is by men or being taught by men. There must be another avenue available to be able to make such a claim like that, and thereby make a claim worthy to be put forth as scriptural truth itself ... for he [Paul] said he didn't receive it of man nor was he taught it.

Basically that is the only way one can aquire knowledge - receiving knowledge from man or being taught it by man --- unless there is another avenue available for one to aquire knowledge. Now VPW may have claimed to receive it the same way like the apostle Paul had, but he certainly never claimed to be the only one who ever did. (Unless you're trying to make a case that God could only talk to VPW and to nobody else. Not even I believe that one.)

Plagiarism and "Common Knowledge"

http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/plagiarism.shtml

Problems in defining exactly what aspects of Christianty constitute "common knowledge" will always abound. The basic reason for this is because many facets of our faith are shared and they also contain common truths (common knowledge) that are likewise shared by those of different faiths - while at the same time there exists real and distinct basic core differences among those of different faiths and those invovled in different Christian groups.

Dr. Wierwille essentially said the same thing in JCING, p.4 of the second edition, i.e. "...we must define our terms. Many people could be misled because while we may be using the same language or words [common knowledge] we may not mean the same thing." Until those of the Christian faith have the desire to come to the place of "defining our terms" then these accusations will persist because while "we may be using the same langauge or words, [common knowledge] we may not mean exactly the same thing." I am sure you have heard it said: "There is nothing so uncommon as common knowledge." We therefore end up asking for standards of behavior that would certainly be wonderful to expect, but no serious man does expect. Yet that is exactly what we expect when we are struggling to maintain our own position of power within our own democratic society. But let's be reasonable. That is not the real world, and this is not what is taking place.

I am sure you must have also heard it said, "One does not need to apologize for the truth, one only needs to apologize for error." That phrase was often taken to the extreme to imply the Christian does not need: "Apologetics" or to apologize for the truth. To assume this should always be the case would indeed be a horrible and a grave mistake. Affirmative or positive apologetics answers questions that the Christian has about their beliefs and doctrine, while it proposes arguments for the validity of the faith all while involving the refutation of false teachings within the Church. Without this very important aspect of the faith, the unbeliever may end up finding Jesus but in the process only end up losing their mind. Without it the Christian is going to react with outrage and indignation, hurl imprecations at others, resort to abjurations… What else should we expect?

Begging your pardon, WTH

That's really a wheel barrow full of vegetable nutrients.

Plagiarism is not defined by whether or not you make any monetary gain.

A monetary gain is only relevant in determining whether or not punitive legal action is warranted.

One does not need to sell a high school term paper in the "marketplace", for example, for it to be considered plagiarism It only needs to satisfy the identifying criteria. Failure to make an improperly cited work available publicly does not absolve the writer of the impropriety.

The knowledge in PFAL was not "common" knowledge. In fact, Wierwille's contention was that it promised to reveal "the greatest secret in the World today". The knowledge in PFAL was so UN-common, said Wierwille, no one had even known about it for 2,000 years until it was revealed to him.

Here is where we disagree, although this seems to be what VPW may have said. Rather this is a classic example of what VPW never said at all. (This is what Mike here often refers to a TVT). Of course, people also did this with the words of Jesus Christ - They claimed he [Jesus] would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. That was their claim, but then, those were not the exact words of Jesus Christ either.

What at one time can be called common-knowledege can be lost. Example: "New light" can consist of old light, it is just new unto the generation the apostle brings it to. What Dr. claimed was that the greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is thre revealed word and will of God. He didn't claim that PFAL was the greatest secret in the world, nor did he claim that the keys for the bibles interpretation that are presented in PFAL were also a secret. Those keys are not a secret to many bible scholars and are what I term as "common-knowledge". The only reason they are not common-knowledge to you, is because there are still many "modern day legalisits" who, as Christ himself put it, "Woe unto you lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." (Luke 11:52)

Kind of remarkable to discover that this whole plagarizm issue is only an issue for the lawyers and the legalists here at GSC - those who struggle over meaningless legalities and have also likewise "taken away the key of knowlege" and hinder those who are entering in. God forbid somebody today take PFAL and learn how to rightly divide the Word of God.

And, he said, it was only given to him on the condition that he teach it to others.

Again, this not exactly what VPW said, but it only sounds like what was said. VPW never claimed it was only given to him.

You will have to go back to the written PFAL to find out exactly what was said, not rely on you memory of what was said. Then, as Mike said here, many of these charges evaporate. I prefer to call them shadows. People are seeing all these shadows, and claiming they are the real deal.

....

[WordWolf responds in boldface and brackets.]

Can some people take the works of others-inventions, studies of their own- and make a NEW work that is something new and different?

OF COURSE WE CAN.

And any HONEST person would cite the works of the others that brought them there. In print, it's required BY LAW-which vpw knew, which most people know, and which is excused by a handful of people who all try to say it was ok for vpw to do it. Note that it's WRONG for others to do it, but ok for vpw to do it.

He's ALWAYS some exception to all sorts of rules. [WTH responds below.]

We don't require that people come up with something completely original. That's nice when you can have it. What we expect-and "we" includes the United States of America as well as all people of honesty, of integrity, of honor, all of us who aspire to "love our neighbor as ourself"- is that SOURCES are CITED in the LEGALLY-REQUIRED manner.

VPW is certainly no exception to any rule. But here's the rub and why this issue rubs people the wrong way. Copyright law has changed over the years as well as amendments (additions) have also been made to the law - i.e. to accomodate the WWW (internet) for example. The problem that writers often generally run into is with "citing sources", specifically what needs to be or should be cited, and what does not need to be cited. Typically speaking information and ideas that are not your own need to be cited.

That's right. Not everything has to be cited.

Information that is often refered to as "common knowledge" does not have to be cited. The problem that writers often encounter is defining exactly what constitutes "common knowledege". Common knowledge mainly consists of and is best determined by whom your work is addressed to - or the target audience. Common knowlege is also information that you knew about your subject without doing research. Of course, common knowlege can change depending on one's research and academic level. Something that is well known to a biologist might be new information to you. That is why information circulated among bioliogist's and medical professionals aren't cited, (unless it is new material) but when such information is addressed to someone like you - well, that's an entirely different story.

The PFAL collaterals and books were a subset of the PFAL foundational class. They were made available only to those who had a "common knowledge" of the information presented to them - inside the PFAL class. The written "Power for Abundant Living" and "Studies in Abundant Living" books and materials were never made available to the general public - at least it was that way during my tenure with TWI. Those books and materials were NOT sold in the public marketplace. However if TWI is now selling and making the same PFAL books and study materials openly available in the general marketplace (which would be new news to me) they may very well be in violation of the copyright law.

That's right. One still can't go down to their neighborly "Barnes and Nobel" store and pick up and buy any of these books today: PFAL, ATDAN, JCOPS, JCOP, JCING, etc., etc., etc. Why do you think TWI still gets all bent out of shape when they find out these books and PFAL study materials are being sold on eBay, etc? It's not because they are violating any copyright laws. It's because they are still trying to KEEP INSIDE the law! --- (As badly messed up as they are today, at least I give them credit for still trying to do something right!)

It's those of you who insist on selling the PFAL materials in the public marketplace who are in violation of the copyright law. These materials were never INTENDED to be, and that is why they aren't cited in "academic fashion" (i.e. footnoted, etc.) that would require them to be - especially if these materials were intended for the public marketplace. So quit blaming TWI for your sins!

It appears everyone (I do mean everyone - all without exception) in this class has got their hands raised as to what they believe the correct answer or the conclusion is. Some people have even taken it upon themselves to count all the hands that have been raised. You are all (without exception) wasting your time with counting all (without exception) the raised hands - regardless of how they have been raised - one way or the other - either yea or nay.

Maybe you all (without exception) should quit guessing about "the answer", and/or quit looking ahead in the book to locate "the answer" and just ...

put down your raised hand! ... for "the teacher" (life) is eventually going to start asking you how you arrived at your conclusion.

(Sometimes this place really reminds me of: "Welcome back Kotter". There's always an "Arnold Horshack" somewhere in the croud with their arm fully extended, wildly flinging up in the air (practically ready to .... their paints) saying, Ooh-ooh-ooooh! Pick me!, Pick me! Pick me, Mr. Kotter, Pick me!")

you mean you were the only one to get the right answer, and the rest of the students said "-1"...

you mean all the rest of the students without exception said "-1"

there was no distinction among the rest of the students - they all said "-1"

there was no exception to this, and there was no distinction made among the students who gave the wrong answer...

that is because all without distinction=all without exception....

it's the same set of students...

why don't you name all the students in the group "all without distinction" who gave the answer "-1"

then name all the students in the group "all without exception" who gave the answer "-1"

and tell me if you don't come up with the same list of names...

Well I see you responded to my post before I had edited the final version. That was my mistake by hitting the "Submit" button before I had everything in place that I wanted to say.

I highly recommend you go back and read the 'edited' version of that post - and try not "looking to far ahead" without gaining an understanding of the material that is being presented to you. We all know what looking ahead without getting a proper understanding of the material that is bering presented results in don't we? It usually results in a less than perfect grade. So we should all (without exception) .... QUIT TRYING TO CHEAT!!

QUOTE

i think that your description of vpw borders on idolatry...

interesting.. a half a dozen other posters came to the same conclusion..

What exactly does this mean and exactly what is it supposed to prove Mr. Ham? Truthfully it doesn't prove a thing to me - other than the fact "half a dozen other posters" have come to the wrong conclusion. Let me explain why I believe this further.

In ninth grade I gave the conclusion and the correct answer to a math question when the rest of the class was completey wrong when applying the same formula. The correct answer to the quesion was "0". The rest of the class had said something else - they all (without distinction) said: "-1".

The teacher then asked, "How many of you say the answer is "0"? About half the class had their hands raised, mine included. Then she asked, "How many of you say -1?" There were a few more than half of the class whose hands were raised who said -1. She asked again, "How many of you still say 0? Now there were only 3 hands raised, instead of 8 like before. She asked again, How many of you think it is still -1? Nearly everyone's hands were raised now, except mine. Then she asked again, "How many of you still say 0? Now only my hand was raised.

Do you want to know why it was still raised? The reason was I had cheated. I looked in the back of the book to find the correct answer to that math question. That didn't mean I understood how to arrive at the correct conclusion to the math question, I just had the correct answer without having the understanding of how to come to the correct answer. That is exactly where I believe a lot of people are at with the PFAL class today and with the PFAL collateral materials. They cheated and "looked ahead". Of course, we got the correct answer in PFAL - but that doesn't mean we have got the understanding on how to arrive at the correct answer. Now everybody in the class has got their hand raised with some other answer that was already written in the book.

The next thing I knew the teacher had started questioning me on how I arrived at the answer. Since I was now the only one in the class left who had said "0" and also because I couldn't give her an appropriate answer (I didn't want to admit I cheated and that I already found the answer in the back of the book) I just said, "Well, I think it could be 0, but I might be wrong." The rest of the class was now looking at me to side with them. I then put down my hand. When she asked for the last time, "How many of you still think the answer should be -1?," then I raised my hand.

Of course I would have gotten an A+, that is, before the rest of the class "peer pressured and talked me out" of the correct answer, even when I knew the correct answer by cheating and looking ahead and not knowing how to arrive at the correct conclusion to the math question.

All (without exception) I learned from that experience in ninth grade taught me was I should not cave into "peer pressure" - that I should learn how to arrive at the correct answer without cheating and looking ahead. I should gain an understanding of the material that was presented by applying it and workng it for myself - especially if I want to keep an A+ grade I can be proud of.

A) We can't have WTH actually admitting to a mistake, can we?

It has to have been an INTENTIONAL error....

My only claim of "all with distinction" from my first post was that when I posted that initial message it was an oversight on my part. I did not say or claim it to be a mistake, even though you assume it to be one. Of course, there is a logical reason behind that oversight. It is also the same reason why many have problems with these words: "throughly" and thoroughly" - assuming and claiming the words are synonomous - or that one is merely the archaic form of the other.

From the mere sound of All without distinction on the surface it appears the phrase implies "all" is not being distinct - or that it is being without distinction or without clarity. THIS is how I initially interpreted the meaning of the phrase - "all without distinction". Since it did not make any sense to say, "all without distinction - i.e, meaning, "all without clarity" I changed the phrase to mean all with distinction, because that would imply the state of being distinct or being clear. This certainly made more logical sense to me than saying: "all is not being distinct or being clear".

But truthfully, this is NOT how the phrase "all without distinction" is used in PFAL. (In PFAL, "all without distinction" is used meaning: "all without discriminiation".) Now I certainly would not have changed that phrase: "all without discrimination" to prefer the phrase: "all with discrimination" because I thought that "all with discrimination" would be more clear or make more logical sense both to me and to others.

B) I saw it in the other post. However, if I responded to every single instance of something wrong, WTH would be furious and insist I was picking on him.

Not true. In fact, I appreciate your criticalness and sharpness of mind in certain areas. The only problem is, that sharpness is often hard for someone to get to, because your ego and cynicism from allowing yourself to become a critic often gets in the way of your ablility to build up the body of Christ as you ought. But then, even I am still learning how to separate these two -- as I really appreciate the former and am still learning even how to forego the latter myself.

...

If he'd used Occam's Razor (and used it CORRECTLY), his first guess would probably have been the correct one.

To help bring others up to speed: Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

(BTW, source: Wikipedia - lest someone accuse me of plagarism again) ...

The only problem as I see it is, Occam's Razor can only apply to those: "multiple competing theories", the many theories (religious doctrines) that have all (without exception) been introduced to us and which have all come [all without exception] to us: "by the will of man."

But this is not the testimony of the Word of God -- and this is what a student of the Word of God must ALWAYS remember. That is, that: The "Word of God" was not written and it did not come: "by the will of man", but rather it came by holy men of God who spoke as they were moved [as they were inspired - not "pushed around"] by the Holy Ghost.

Compare 1 Peter 1:21 --

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

to: Galatians 1:21 --

For I neither received it of man, [Paul states he never received it, -- the Word of God by or of man, which is by way of the will of man] neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Sadly, he's still trying to make the case that pfal was correct in using a word incorrectly, and willing to torture the English language and make elaborate, empty, circumlocuitous posts to do so.

This is because according to WW, one is to believe: "Occam's Razor" is the only correct route to go to get to the: "simplest definition or to the simplest explanation". But WW just doesn't want to admit any of the following: (also from: Wikipedia)

The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simplest explanation. No doubt this represents correctly the general tendency of his philosophy, [specifically: William Ockham's philosopy - the one to whom "Occam's Razor was attributed to] but it has not so far been found in any of his writings.

Remarkably, one can't even see "that philosophy" present in the writings of William Ockham! But then, one is to rely on "Occam's Razor to get to the: "simplest explanation?" It certainly sounds more and more and more like a case of the: "blind following or leading the blind" to me indeed.

He's certainly free to do so. He's also free to think he's actually fooling someone. And to think he'll get some sort of "atta boy" for doing so. Technically, he'll get the last, but from other posters who do the same, not from the only one whose opinion truly counts.//

Here is a classic example of where WW's ego and cynicism is not only blocking and getting in the way of his own sharpness, but also others because his ego and cynacim often overshadows his ability to be sharper than an "Occams Razor". It shows up in the fact he believes I am looking for a: "slap on the back" - perhaps from him, or perhaps an: "atta boy" from someone -- to use his own words. Of course, the only reason WW says he is not being fooled is because the only opinion that still counts is his own. Oh well, (an I do mean "deep well") that's his "broken cistern" and why it is still so very hard for him to get beyond that "broken cistern" of ego and cynicism.

First off I want to say I have a confession to make, especially to WW. My earlier all with distinction post (post# 1011) was a deliberate and intentional error on my part to find out how many people here still care to read critically - not necessarily what I write, but what is in the "written text" of PFAL. I wasn't even sure if I was even going to get anyone's attention over that error, this: "all with distinction" error, but thankfully we have a critic here who cares to read (well, at least to some extent) exactly what is written --- and here is what I mean by: "to some extent", WW.

WW pointed out the error I deliberately made in post# 1011, but he failed to point out the same error that appears earlier in post# 1006. Here is that post again with that same error highlighted in color - just so we don't miss it this time.

Know it all -- recite it all -- practice it all. Now here comes the "all" important question: Would that be all without exception, or all with distinction? If one can answer the "all" question, it will "all" lead to a better understanding of the heart of the matter.

Here's the problem as I see it folks. My first post, post #1006 making the remark: "all with distinction" was merely an oversight on my part. Yet WW does not speak up and correct the error that appears in the first post - about that apparent oversight. He only speaks up and corrects the error when I bring "PFAL" into the picture - in post# 1011. So what's the difference in the error - since we are apparenty discussing the subject if there is a difference in some words or not? There is absolutely none there. The only difference is this: Post# 1006 is not a threat to his "theological position", yet post# 1011 with PFAL in it is.

The reason why PFAL is still very threatening to our "theological position" is because all of us want to be correct in "our doctrine", don't we? We don't want to admit we could be "theologically incorrect" - especially not to ourselves, and certainly not to anybody else! (Somehow we all have this kind of mindset going on thinking, that is: This "God-breathed" doctrine is all mine and it completely belongs to me -- and by god I'm not going to let anybody touch it or tamper with it!!!)

Here it is - "All" a bit more clearly, in the written form from the PFAL syllabus:

All scripture (nothing less)

All without exception (exclusion, omission, debarment)

All without distinction (discriminiation)

John 3:16,17; 12:32. Romans 5:12. II Corinthians 5:14,15 Ephesians 4:6,

Titus 2:11. Hebrews 2:9. 1 John 1:9; 2:2.

The above scriptures are but a few examples in the Word of God where the Word of God is refering to: All without distinction (discriminiation), but these particular scriptures are not referring to: All without exception (exclusion, omission, debarment).

Going back to that first post, post# 1006 - specifically: "All" is a very important question. If we can answer the "all" question, it will "all" lead to a better understanding of the heart of the matter. I believe that statement to be more emphatic and even more important now than when I first posted the remark, because "all" certainly goes further than the biblical sense/usage I brought up. Need proof of this? We all (without exception) missed it in post# 1006, but not in post# 1011.

However my attempt at defining "all" - that is. all with distinction, without going back and checking first to see how it was being used in PFAL accurately, may have thrown some people more off track than what they initially were. "All without distinction" is equivalent to and equals "All without discrimination." That is how "All without distinction" (discrimination) is used in PFAL.

I won't take the time to respond to every concern, as apparently your main concern is this:

....

We know that because he [VPW] gives the OPPOSITE explanation in a different book.

Ok. I am willing to investigate and look into this further. Please name the books where there is an opposite explanation.

If one were to actually think that vpw's books are God-breathed, one would be in a terrible bind here, since vpw claims God-breathed works are inerrant, are free of error,

I am not aware of anyplace where VPW ever claimed this. Moreover, VPW claimed, "Not everything VPW necessarilly writes is God-breathed." (And I am just quoting that from memory ... actually from what another poster here brought to light a while back and not the written form of PFAL verbatim. I long lost the written PFAL, so my recollection of the written form of PFAL could be hazy.)

The only claim VPW ever made is that the bible itself - is what is actually God-Breathed. "ALL scripture is "God-Breathed". In the film class VPW talkes and discusses the word: "ALL" long before he talkes about and discusss what is: "God-Breathed." That is: "ALL SCRIPTURE - WITHOUT EXCEPTION, is God-breathed."

1st. We learned how to rightly divide the Word of God by "the will of man" -- not by "revelation". For example, VPW stated in PFAL: You are sitting and learning this information by the will of man. For example: YOU willed to be in this class on Power For Abundant Living."

What often comes to us by the "will of man" - even the truth of the Word of God at times for example, will not always necessarily be "God-breathed", however the Word of God itself will be God-breathed - provided the individual had spoken it verbatum.

The words in Psalm 14:1 "... there is no God." are still God-breathed words there, because they are verbatim, and a man himself may even will to say , "there is no God", but what he would then be speaking would not be "God-breathed", as would have just forgotten the first part of that verse ... "The fool hath said in his heart, etc."

It is so often that way with the "will of man" -- to forget certain words ...

and there is a mathematical contradiction between two of his books.

This means it is impossible for both statements to be correct-since they are mutually exclusive.

Not necessarily so, as the PFAL "Studies in Abundant Living" books were also written: "by the will of man". If the initial PFAL books were "God-breathed", then they would not need to go through these "revisions". However, revelation does not need to go through "revisions" but it is that "revelation" that we are ultimately after and recapturing. ....