waysider

I guess I don't get it. If it was just a rogue snow squall that nobody else happened to see, what makes it so phenomenal? I mean, if it was just a rogue snow squall, that would make it a natural occurrence, not phenomenon.

I thought the question was "Do you believe the snowstorm was real?" Now you're saying it's the audible voice that's in question? Maybe you could clarify.

So then a "short, isolated snow squall" could be considered a phenomenon of Biblical proportions? This snowdrift gets deeper all the time.

Incidentally----Wierwille, himself, claimed (IIRC, in the PFAL class) that research should be approached with an open mind, even though, in practice, that's not what he did. As an example, he cited his experiences with researching the number of days between the Ascension and Pentecost. At one time he said it was seven and another time said it was eight. He said (paraphrased), "In The Way Ministry, if new research shows our old research to be incorrect, we change."

From The snowstorm thread Mike said: Again, Mark, what is a factual error to you can be seen as not at all the case when you use differing methods to read the writings. This shouldn’t be too hard to see. We were shown how unbelieving scholars can read errors into the ancient scriptures by way of their methodology, right? ******* Then waysider said: Differing methods? What, pray tell, might be these "differing methods" one might use to explain the errors in genealogy that Ham pointed out? ********* To which Mike replied: #1 One method would be meekness. I alluded to this before in my response to Mark in Post #633 when I said "We were shown how unbelieving scholars can read errors into the ancient scriptures by way of their methodology, right? " We were taught this in the class, remember? The assumption must be made before beginning that the text is right. Then you look for the answers on THAT side of the tracks, not on the side that you all are on, assuming that it's full of errors. #2 Another would be being familiar with ALL the places in the writings where the target topic comes up. This takes years, and it must be done with #1 in mind. #3 Word studies - key words that are employed in the target topic need to be defined in terms of how they are used elsewhere WITHIN the PFAL writings, not how they are defined outside the writings. This too takes much time, especially considering we don't have a concordance for the PFAL writings. There are others. I've listed these here many times in years past, but thanks for not seeing them, cuz it gives me a chance to repeat them for newcomers. ********** Then waysider said: Excuse me, Mike That's utter nonsense. The genealogy errors are simply that----errors. It shouldn't take "years" or a "PFAL concordance" to recognize that. Approaching the text with an presumption that it MUST be right or wrong, is faulty research methodology. *********** Mike's response: Not necessarily. If a researcher has ALREADY determined that the text is right from previous research, then current searches can use that previous result to help guide the work. Similarly, if the text has previously been found by a researcher to be faulty, then the methods I suggested would not be used. You're assuming that all research has as its goal finding the text right or wrong. That's not the case with me, and it's not the case with others here. I start out with the assumption that the text is right, and an apparent error needs to be reconciled, so I keep searching until a satiffactory answer is found. Others here start out with the assumption that the text is wrong, and they work it until they think they've demonstrated this by finding an apparent error, and that's where they halt their search. It sounds to me that you've only thought this through from one side. It's like you're too emotionally invested with the idea that the text is wrong, and this prevents you from seeing the other possible side. That possibility offends you so much you don't give it enough time and brainpower to see what I'm talking about. *********** Mike (from above context) I start out with the assumption that the text is right, and an apparent error needs to be reconciled, so I keep searching until a satiffactory answer is found. ************ waysider's response: Paraphrased straight out of PFAL That's exactly what Wierwille did. He made up his mind what HE thought it should say and wouldn't relent until he found a way to fit it with his own thinking. "The Word MUST say it's Ok to have sex with someone else's wife, kids, it just HAS to." ************** SNIP Mike: I gotta go to work.

"Yes, Your Honor, I took the horse. But, after all, since God put him here originally, I figured he must be Public Equine. Anyways, it seemed cruel to me that someone had tied him the gas pumps. (what with there being a blinding snow cone machine inside the fillin' station and all that.) So I said, 'Lord. I need a sign. Doesn't have to be neon or nuthin fancy. But ifffen it's Ok fer me to take this here horse, let him whinny as I cinch up my saddle'. And whinny he did. So you see, Your Honor, it must have been predestined to be since before the foundations of horse shoes. I named him Frosty in honor of the circumstance under which we first got aquainted that cold, cold August day." Hi Yo, Silver Iodide, Away!

288 acres of N.C. forest?? I wonder what kind of harvest value you're looking at there! Could be like sitting on a gold mine.

Apparently you're not hip to the latest and greatest research techniques, Mr. Ham. Get with it, Daddy-O!

This one: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=19238

Simple Show me what it is you think I missed and let that speak for itself.

Excuse me, Mike That's utter nonsense. The genealogy errors are simply that----errors. It shouldn't take "years" or a "PFAL concordance" to recognize that. Approaching the text with an presumption that it MUST be right or wrong, is faulty research methodology.

Differing methods? What, pray tell, might be these "differing methods" one might use to explain the errors in genealogy that Ham pointed out?

I think Mark's point is that both circles have equal radii and a common center.

Now, see? Youse guys just don't "get it". The flood involved WATER! This involves SNOW! Same basic substance but a much deeper "spirchal" significance. If only yudda been payin' attention in PLAF (The Wonder Class), yudda knowed that.

Dr. WW Your premise is interesting but has a philosophical, esoteric gist to it. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe you want to start a thread that approaches it from that angle. Just a thought. The ongoing discussion, on the other hand, is concerned more with examining the literal differences or similarities that can be derived from simply approaching it in a factual manner. Kinda like the difference between "throughly" and '"thoroughly" Wierwille try to give it an esoteric spin by saying one was more precise , complete and deeper than the other. In reality, both words mean exactly the same thing.

Couldn't you just " believe" the little boogers away? Everybody sing with me! All things are possible---only believe

"The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round 'round and 'round 'round and 'round"

28. Give us your money. (a)Expect it to magically replace itself and multiply.

It appears he was yanking Dr. Higgins' chain as well, by allowing her to think Bullinger was all new to him.

Thanks, Socks That is a very comprehensive summary. In my case, my copyrights involved music. When I copyrighted the pieces in 1969-1971, music copyrights were for a period of 28 years with an option to renew with certain restrictions. I chose to simply allow mine to go into PD. That 28 years has since been extended to the writer's lifetime and then some, as you have stated. Mary Had A Little Lamb is a good example to use in understanding PD. The song itself is in PD yet SRV was able to copyright his particular arrangement. Whole other ball of wax. Still, even with something that is in PD, you must give proper citation. Thanks for taking the time to search out all that info. edit It should be noted, also, that a person reading The Bible Tells Me So, for example, cannot be expected to know what was said in SNS# 214. Each work should have included its own list of citations.

It's irrelevant, Mike Between the time Wierwille plagiarized them and the incident from 6 years ago that you cited, the copyright appeared on the materials. I own several copyrights myself. They have all been in Public Domain now for several years. If you had used my materials, claiming them to be your own, between the time I copyrighted them and the time they went into PD, you would have been a plagiarist no matter how noble your cause. Incidentally, once a work has gone into Public Domain, no one can copyright it again, not even the author. At least that is my understanding of how it works. So, if these works were in Public Domain when Wierwille "borrowed" them, he had no business copyrighting them in the first place. edited for 2x post.