WordWolf

If I were "heated up", it might be about the sad attempt to dismiss what I say by skipping the content, and slapping a dishonest label on it, like that it's the result of being "heated up." (BTW, still not "heated up.") http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics "1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that “dream stealers” will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with calling your opponent a name that is relevant and objectively defined. The most common example of name calling against me is “negative;” in coaching, the critics of coaches are often “college professors” and the word “professor” is used as a name-calling tactic by the coaches who are the targets of the criticism in question; as a coach, I have been criticized as being “too intense,” a common but undefined put-down of successful youth and high school coaches. People who criticize their former employer are dishonestly dismissed as “disgruntled” or “bitter.” These are all efforts to distract the audience by changing the subject because the speaker cannot refute the facts or logic of the opponent. “Womanizer” and “price gouger” and “exploiter” are other name-calling names that cannot be objectively defined." ======================================= Or, in this case, the debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by saying it's the result of being "heated" and not actually demonstrating the logic it demonstrates. [i'll address plenty of other things later. Life's banging on the door.]

Steve, we went through this for MONTHS and really explored all sides of this. You're repeating stuff that was already discussed to death. But, I'll be nice and try to walk you through a brief, concise form of everything. One thing: I started from a position similar to, or identical to, your own before this all started. A) I found one side made sense-and it wasn't the side I WANTED to agree with B) I found this didn't challenge MY FAITH-just my faulty understanding So, if you actually come off and claim I'm biased- I actually WANT your side to be correct. I changed positions because it did not. I reserve the right to change back-HAPPILY AND EAGERLY- if you SOMEHOW present something that was overlooked and is unassailable. ======================================== "Raf, your interpretion of your experience is that when you were speaking in tongues, you were faking it." His "interpretation of his experience" is that he produced "free vocalization", which he was TOLD was "speaking in tongues", but it actually was not. ==================================================== "My interpretation of my experience is that when I speak in tongues I am genuinely speaking in tongues in accordance with 1 Corinthians 12-14." You're completely disregarding ACTS when discussing Biblical "speaking in tongues." You're focusing on I Corinthians- and where your understanding of I Corinthians contradicts the rather straightforward reading of Acts, you're choosing to disregard Acts 2 rather than re-examine your presuppositions to see how you ended up supposedly agreeing with one Scripture and rather clearly and blatantly DISagreeing with another. ================================================ "You say that when I speak in tongues, it is not in accordance with 1 Corinthians 12-14 because I do not produce a language." No, that's not what he said. If you're supposedly "speaking in tongues", Acts said it should be in a language that CAN be understood- it's a LANGUAGE. Languages are meant to do that- they're all made in order to communicate ideas and concepts. If you're saying that the same act in Acts- that produced languages that bystanders were able to understand, and often did- and that it's NEVER supposed to be understood by ANY bystander, EVER, then you have an obvious problem. Either I Corinthians contradicts Acts, or your understanding of both contradict. Acts is VERY straightforward about people understanding in more than one instance. To insist your theology and understanding is correct and Acts is in error is to prioritize your understanding and theology over Scripture. If that's what you MEAN to do, at least be honest that it's what you MEANT to do. Me, I absolutely refuse to do that, no matter HOW much I like my theology. So, he and I would say that you're not "speaking in LANGUAGES" as described in Acts 2 because that produces a LANGUAGE every time. Addressing I Corinthians is separate, if only because there needs to be discussion to explain why I Corinthians makes sense in light of Acts 2, which was already very straightforward. (Explain the few difficult in light of the many clear, not vice versa.) ================================================== "I gave the definition of a language, a system of verbal communication that exhibits double articulation and syntax." You posted that-and left no explanation for what that should mean, what a layman should understand from that, or even any indication YOU understood it as opposed to just a cut-and-paste you didn't understand when you pasted it. You also didn't include a source. (When I posted one, it was relatively clear of jargon AND included a link back to a much longer article with explanations.) "When I speak in tongues, I produce a system that exhibits double articulation and syntax." No you don't. Sounds like you DIDN'T understand what you posted. First of all, you don't "produce a SYSTEM." The development of an entire language is the production of a system. If you're developing a language on your own, then you are definitely doing it and not God Almighty passing along words in an already-existing language. If you read a speech aloud in a language you didn't speak (but existed), you wouldn't "produce a system" then either-you would reproduce words pre-existing in a previously-produced system. Second of all, for you to speak in a real language, let's stipulate that it would ACCURATELY demonstrate "double articulation" and "syntax", as well as fill the more basic requirements of productivity, recursivity and displacement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language It has been demonstrated, many times over, that many people who have CLAIMED to have produced the Biblical "speaking in languages" over time have had their alleged "languages" recorded and studied by linguistic experts-people who spend their lives studying languages, their properties, their characteristics, and so on. What was found? So far, in every single case, the supposed "tongues" producer was NOT producing a language- they were not demonstrating any "system" nor any of the characteristics we described. They were definitely SPEAKING, and producing sounds. Those sounds often RESEMBLED the sounds of actual languages that DID demonstrate all the aforementioned properties. So, anyone-especially someone who earnestly WANTS to believe he can produce an "unknown tongue" can be convinced they heard themself pronounce words in a real language with real language characteristics. However, so far, all CLAIMS of such have produced well-intentioned people who produced content-less, language-less examples of vocalization. Is it possible that ALL of those people were producing the counterfeit, and you're The Great Exception that can produce a real language? Well, there's only one way to support that claim, and it's not by repeating it a lot or with more volume. Simply let an expert linguist record a few hours of the supposed "speaking in languages" you do, then review it. An EXPERT LINGUIST would have no difficulty in going over such a large sample and determining with certainty whether or not this was a real language (whether or not the linguist can recognize WHICH language), or yet another example of content-less vocalization. Have you done that already? Of course you haven't- which is why you can fairly say that you BELIEVE you speak in such a language, or you THINK you speak in such a language. However, since you're not a linguistics expert, you're not qualified to judge the results. So, your bald claim that you're producing ANY of the specific qualities is without merit because it proceeds from conviction, not evidence. ============================================ "Then you did a word study that shows Paul was writing about "language/s."" If you're not clear that "tongues" is the same word as "languages", both in Greek and other languages (like modern Spanish and early modern English with some expressions still in use today), then I don't know how you're going to participate in this discussion. Raf went through the usages of the Greek word IN THE BIBLE. IN THE BIBLE, it was demonstrated to be consistent with what we SHOULD expect if we've studied language- that the usages of "glossa" in the Bible- just like "tongue" in English or "lengua" in Spanish- refers to a LANGUAGE as well as the physical organ that's used to articulate the language. It was pretty straightforward. Everything was easy to follow, with the possible exception of I Corinthians, which suggests that A) I Corinthians needs extra attention B) I Corinthians' usages need to be understood in light of the others, not the other way around. And he covered I Corinthians also. ============================================ "BUT, the test you propose for whether or not the thing we call tongues today is genuine or not is if the speaker produces a specific, identifiable language." You misunderstand, and that was made clearer in your next sentence. "There is NOTHING in 1 Corinthians 12-14 that indicates a person speaking in tongues MUST produce a specific, identifiable language." Based on your usage of "identifiable", you're using it to mean "Ah-he's speaking Etruscan, she's speaking Guaranee, and he's speaking Romansch." That is, a language that can be positively identified by name as a specific, pre-existing language. The challenge, which is easy to understand and was explained in exhaustive detail, is that expert linguists can identify the elements of language in their sleep- so if they're exposed to a lengthy sample of a supposed language, they can identify which elements the sample actually demonstrates rather than RESEMBLING. IF you produced a known language, but the linguist didn't recognize it (like Guaranee or Romansch), the linguist could still recognize which elements of speech that language demonstrated-whatever language it was. IF you produces an actual language that NOBODY had ever heard, then the linguist could still recognize which elements of speech that language demonstrated- whatever language it was. So, the challenge is, let an expert linguist collect an extensive sample of the supposed language, then go off and examine it. IF it's a real language, the linguist would know it was a real language-whether or not they recognized or understood it. I saw a sample of this with a NON-EXPERT. Someone wrote a comic strip series, and in the series, some characters spoke a Hungarian dialect with a few slang words added to it. The writer gave NO indication this was so-it would have given away a later surprise. The same editor proof-read all the episodes. At one point, he sent a note back about one panel in the unknown language. He asked the writer if he used the wrong word, and if a different word was used instead-and gave the word. THE EDITOR WAS CORRECT. Despite not knowing there WAS a consistent language for sure, not knowing WHICH language it was, and having NO background in Hungarian nor linguistics, after a SMALL sampling of the language, he was working out what some of the words meant to the point he spotted a legitimate type. Experts can do MUCH better than that when exposed to MUCH bigger examples. ============================================ "The only requirement 1 Corinthians 12-14 puts on speaking in tongues is that the speaker MUST NOT understand what she is saying." Incorrect-it also includes that the speaker speaking in languages is actually SPEAKING A LANGUAGE- AND that language must be one the speaker does not understand. So, the person MIGHT be speaking in a tongue if they said the following and had no understanding of what was said: "Ọlọrun le ti wa ni gbẹkẹle ati ki o jẹ olóòótọ. Ti o ba ti rẹ eniyan ni o wa olóòótọ, wọn yoo ni anfaani." The same person would rather obviously not be speaking in a tongue if they said the following and had no understanding of what was said: "Moo, moo-moo-moo. Moo-moo, moo-MOO-moo-moo, moo-moo-Moo-MOO, Moo-moo-moo-MOO." Mind you, any actor worthy of the name could read either aloud, and do so with demonstrated conviction and deep emotions and gravitas. However, in the first case, that's an actual language, and in the second case, that's obviously NOT an actual language by any sane linguist's standards. =================================== Here, you continue making the same mistake, but I'm pasting it to include the entire post. "When you NARROW the definition of glossa down to "a specific, identifiable language" you are doing the same kind of violence to the text that Wierwille used to do. You are changing the language of the text, the word glossa from multivocal, polysemic, multuivalent (tolerant of imperfection, capable of using ambiguity to communicate meaning)... to absolute (without imperfection), for the purposes of "proving" something that by its very nature CANNOT be proven OR disproven, "proving" that your interpretation is correct, and ALL OTHERS are wrong. Is it accurate for you to say that a person speaking in tongues must produce a language to be in accordance with 1 Corinthians 12-14? Yes, it is! Is it accurate for you to say that a person MUST produce a specific, identifiable language to be in accordance with 1 Corinthians 12-14? No, it is not!" I see no reason to repost everything I just said about it. This was all already addressed-by me- in this reply. ====================================== "And concerning whether or not speaking in tongues seems to be "supernatural"..." Actually, it's a secondary consideration to whether or not it's producing a LANGUAGE. Nobody cares about the origin of a string of nonsense syllables 2 hours long that RESEMBLE the sound of speech-because it is devoid of meaning. First, is an actual LANGUAGE being produced? Second, is that language one the speaker already knows? If it's not an actual language, then anyone can do it. If it's a language the speaker already knows, then anyone who knows that language can do it. In neither case does a claim of the supernatural sound sensible. IF an example is found where the speaking results in an actual language, AND the language is one the speaker does not know, THEN we've got something worth discussing. Since the Bible, however, we haven't FOUND such an example. Oh, we've found CLAIMS of such, but any attempt to CONFIRM the claims always falls down, and we either end up with something proven NOT to be a language, OR a language that was known to the speaker, or simply a CLAIM and no way to test the claim. If that level of evidence was enough to convince, we'd all believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Voodoo, UFO grey aliens, etc, etc. ==================================== "I Corinthians 14:22 says that tongues are a sign... " Producing a real language that the speaker doesn't know but the hearer does, I'm confident that would be a very convincing sign to many people, who might want to hear more and become Christians. In other words, real tongues are a sign-but for those that don't believe. For example: Raf claims to no longer be a Christian. Produce, demonstrably and beyond possibility of faking, an extensive sample in an actual language that you yourself don't speak, and I guarantee you will have his attention. In fact, you might get him to reverse his convictions, declare himself a Christian, and repudiate his current claims. That's what happens when a sign for those that believe not is demonstrated to those that believe not. ============================== "Romans 4:11 says that Abraham received the sign of circumcision... How "supernatural" was THAT? He cut the end of his own member off! And that was a sign to him because it reminded him every time he used his member, that God had made a promise that had not yet come to pass, about what was going to come out of that member." That was a sign specifically for Abraham-who believed. (Later, for others who believed as Abraham did.) That was NOT a sign specifically for those who believed not. =============================== "Philippians 3:3 says, "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." Speaking in tongues served the same purpose in the lives of the first Christians that circumcision served in the lives of the Jews." How the HECK did you get THAT from Philippians 3:3? =============================== "Every time we decide to use our mouths to utter what seems to our flesh to be nonsense, in accordance with 1 Corinthians 12-14, we are reminding ourselves that God has made a promise that has not yet come to pass about what IS going to come out of our mouths." Nice sentiment-but that "reminder" business is your opinion, which you're reading into the text. I've seen similar readings-into based on the significance of the shape of the cross-as a lowercase "t" shape, and trying to get a camel through the eye of a needle and a supposed gate to Jerusalem by that name. All sounded pious, but all added meanings not directly supported by the text- and the examples I gave were demonstrably false. (Is it possible that yours was also a well-intentioned error like the others?) ================================= Something I'm curious about, Steve. In the interest of making the information easy to find- because, IMHO, it's both relevant and important- I took the data about "free vocalization" and separated it out into a short thread all its own. Any chance you read that little thing? You should-it's got some important information...

I think Cardinals get their titles included. In practice, "Monsignor" can be appended for a lot of people, but I've only heard it used for the truly venerable (that is, he was really, really old.) I read here that letters to "the Teacher" went to the Research Department. I don't know if that was only after several years, or if all the letters went there as soon as he set up the department. But they occasionally DID get answers. Back when I thought he'd been issued a doctorate from a respected institution of learning, I referred to him as "DOC." I bought into his "humble, aw-shucks" public facade and thought he would find it needlessly high-faluting to use a formal title. My lack of actually knowing his character (who he was when the microphones were off) led me to fall for his carefully-crafted public image. Plus, since I was trustworthy, I saw no reason for him to be otherwise, and expected he was equally trustworthy. (The logical errors are very obvious in hindsight.)

Um, Adolf Hitler? Can I get Benito Mussolini in as a second guess?

For corn's sake, that's not what he just said. He posted a theoretical, asking what Raf believed, with a separate issue being whether it was a CORRECT belief. "..... Do you feel like Wierwille pulled the wool over our eyes, that you had the wool pulled off of yours, and you care enough about me to try to pull the wool off of my eyes also, but I'm just too stubborn and set in the ways I learned in PFAL to seriously consider that your argument might be right?"

I'm not him, but he probably sees the same point I do. I will illustrate it a different way. Right by the Port Authority in Manhattan is a store. I used to see it every time I took a Greyhound Bus leaving the Port Authority. It sold Greek stuff. I found it interesting because the store also had a sign that said something in Greek. Based on my modest attempts at Koine Greek, I was able to recognize the letters. The Greek text read "Ellanikon." Now, I knew the Greeks don't call their country "Greece"- they call it "Hellas." I knew the suffix "-tikos" from I Corinthians 12. Whenever I covered I Corinthians 12 with anybody, I used to explain that "pneumatikos" was the plural form, with "pneuma" as the root, and that it could properly be translated as "spiritual matters" "spiritual things" "spiritual stuff", depending on the translator's whims, since that was all effectively synonymous. So, I knew this store sold "Greek stuff." A digression into possible alternative meanings of "spirituals" without properly addressing it as "pneumatikos" and completely leaving out what "-tikos" means to the word-other than a plural- is about as honest as vpw explaining in detail what the significance is of using the word "replenish" in early Genesis while completely ignoring that the Hebrew word meant "to fill" and rendering it "replenish" in the first place injected meanings into the word that it never had in the first place. Even if it matched my theology perfectly, I would not want to be that dishonest, that sloppy with my work. I find that it becomes FAR too easy to ascribe all sorts of things to texts that have a clear, direct meaning, simply because one WANTS to see something other than the clear, direct meaning (at least in cases where there is a clear, direct meaning that makes sense by itself.) Ockham's Razor would strongly suggest we skip the verbal gymnastics. I don't know if thats what Raf meant, but he might have.'

"Chico was born in El Barrio. Spent much of his time in the streets. His mind hungry for knowledge, his belly for something to eat. Times are tough. Chico and the Man." A later episode explained that Chico DIED, but the original explanation given was his moving back to Mexico- with Ed Brown apparently using that answer so he wouldn't have to deal with Chico's death.

Got it in one!

Goodfellas Joe Pesci Lethal Weapon 2

"It's a nice day for a [TITLE.] It's a nice day to start again."

"A specific act of transferring intention from one being to another is communication. The means of doing so... ANY means... is a language." No, actually, that's lumping a lot of things together into "language" that are NOT languages. A dog growling at a human or another dog is not using a "language" but he IS communicating aggression. If it were a language, it would be a LOT easier to determine if the growl was meant in self-defense, or in guarding food or a cub, or a warning he wants to attack a specific person, or so on. There would be no need to consult experts, just a study of the animal's "language" and confusion would fade. It would be like Han Solo responding to Chewbacca. Animal sounds, and a human responding with the other 1/2 of a conversation. (Whether or not the animal understood our half.) Every night, in bars and nightclubs around the world, there's singles all over who either want company or don't want company, and non-singles who want the same. Before a stranger approaches one, their body movements and positions- nicknamed "body language" by those who have no knowledge of non-verbal communication-tell quite a bit, and the first few seconds of contact tell even more. There's no "language" but certain signals will indicate whether someone is welcome or intruding, or if neither is decided. (When I say "body language" is a complete misnomer, I mean that actual studies of it do not refer to it as "body language." In textbooks and classrooms, it's "non-verbal communication" that's studied. There was a book that circulated, decades ago, with the name "Body Language." It was VERY rudimentary as an introduction, and its author later wrote a book with some substantial content called "Subtext." So, I can blame Julius Fast for people thinking the subject was that easy and should also be called a "language" despite lacking the requirements for a language. Then again, if a "hot dog" can also be called a "tube steak" even when it's made of mystery meat and contains NO STEAK, then "body language" can be called that- among those willing to be obviously inaccurate.)

Now, I've noticed that some people seem confused, and conflate all COMMUNICATION with LANGUAGE. Let's look at an example I've studied-wolves. Now, wolves are canines, social, and fairly intelligent (for animals.) As they are social, they DO communicate, but there's no LANGUAGE and thus no VOCABULARY. If an alpha wolf is present with his pack, he declares his status in the way he stands, the position of his ears, and the position of his tail. Other pack members will acknowledge this status relative to theirs with different stances and positions. Furthermore, their interactions with each other will make that transparent for those who actually observe animals with understanding. If one means to challenge the alpha, he simply has to present an alpha stance and positions, and the current alpha will either step aside (unlikely), or assume an aggressive stance and growl at the challenger, acknowledging the challenge and escalating the situation-if the challenger wants to back out, this is their only chance. Right after that is a fight to a submission, where the loser submits to the authority of the winner, all through actions. Wolves, furthermore, can resolve chords in their howls. They can call their pack together, they can warn of danger, they can convey urgency. However, with no LANGUAGE and no VOCABULARY, they are unable to have a DISCUSSION. There are no discussions about whether or not it's a good idea to assemble at a certain discovered roadkill, or what it means to the pack that human developers are considering construction across from their home, or anything else. They can communicate SIGNALS but not conversations. They can use various sounds, and various movements of ears, tail, and so on, and even limited pheromonal deposits, but there's no conversation. ============================================= Animals communicate simple signals to each other, and do NOT have conversations. Some of these are NOT hard if someone's trying to understand. I've seen videos of cute animals on YT where the animal is clearly expressing a signal, and the people are either ignoring it, or don't care the animal is communicating- whether fear, or aggression, or a general plea for help.

Steve, it sounded to me like you were saying the ONLY mention of "tongues of angels" in the Bible didn't mean people were actually speaking in "tongues of angels." I agree. As someone else mentioned at some point, humans started with one language and divided into many through their divisive human nature. Angels, at most, should have one language for the loyal adherents to God, and one (or more) for the failed rebellion and the rebels thereof. So, angels wouldn't need "tongues", plural. At most, one "Angelese" would be more than enough. (Hm-that would be a shocker. "You can speak in tongues of angels-but only the tongues of the ones who are known as devils. You can do this by the power of God." No, doesn't even work as a ridiculous joke. Never mind.)

This is NOT a Doctrinal discussion. It seems some people aren't aware that there's specific defintions about what a language IS, what a language is NOT, and often it's used- incorrectly- synonymously with SIMILAR words that are not synonyms (communication, code). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language "Language is the ability to acquire and use complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so, and a language is any specific example of such a system. The scientific study of language is called linguistics." To make basic distinctions, Communication experts have pointed out that humans have 4 basic categories in how they communicate with each other. 2 are languages, 2 are not. The distinctions are whether they are VOCAL and whether they are VERBAL. VOCAL indicates sound from the person's mouth and vocal cords. VERBAL indicates whether or not actual WORDS are involved. So, we can have communication that is verbal and vocal (spoken speech), verbal and non-vocal (writing, how we're communicating now), non-verbal and vocal (using tone and sounds to pass simple concepts like blowing a whistle to signal "STOP!") non-verbal and non-vocal (using hand-signals and body position to convey simple concepts like "wait for my signal" and "you're not getting past me and this door without showing the required ID") For all but the most simple concepts, it is required for humans to communicate, in one form or another, using WORDS- thus, using a LANGUAGE. Those of you who doubt the ability to convey SIMPLE concepts without words can see lots of examples right now. Simply go to YouTube or another video-hosting site and look for videos of "Shaun the Sheep" or "Timmy Time." All of those videos are cartoons without any kind of WORDS. (The cinema full-length film of "Shaun the Sheep" had a few words written, but almost none, and all the cartoons use NO words.)

Sometimes it's easier to spot who's having a discussion, and who's skimming entire posts and cherry-picking sentences to find something to disagree to in order to prop up their current belief system. As part of a much longer post, I wrote this: So, we started with the example of languages. "All[accounts before this showed a demonstration of languages that someone recognized, and someone present understood- which made them not only human languages, but CURRENT languages spoken LOCALLY by SOMEONE if not many people." The reply I got ignored the rest of the post- which used VERY sound reasoning, and I suspect it was ignored because it was unassailable- and focused in in arguing with this sentence AND MISUNDERSTANDING IT. "Say what? Who's imagination fabricated this? If it's plainly written that no man understandeth (ICor.14:2), why the contradiction with scripture?" Nice insult-while failing to read what is written. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/account "Account"- a description of facts, conditions, or events : report, narrative <the newspaper account of the fire> The ACCOUNTS of Speaking in Languages are all through Acts, which is authored by God Almighty, not "imagined" nor "fabricated"-at least to those of us Christians who respect it- and they show people who spoke languages, and other people present knew they spoke languages, and understood them well enough to know the content. (I know a few words of French or German. I could identify the languages, but not understand the content.) An entirely separate question is: why does I Corinthians appear to contradict numerous accounts in Acts? The Acts accounts are unimpeachable-for Christians who respect the Bible. Why does the description in I Corinthians APPEAR to say the Acts accounts are impossible? Is this an actual contradiction, or do we misunderstand the description in I Corinthians?

All of the "it's a language but it's nothing like a recognizable, human language. It's obviously tongues of angels, silly!" stuff is all based on a SINGLE VERSE. That gets me nervous about a doctrine, lately. Usually means I misunderstood the verse, not that a single verse really is the basis for an entire, accurate doctrine. It's all on a SINGLE MENTION of "tongues of angels." "Well, there you have it-'tongues of angels' is mentioned, and Paul even talks of speaking in them. Case closed." Not quite, imaginary person I'm disagreeing with. Let's take a look at the verse AND ITS CONTEXT. I Corinthians 13:1-3 (NASB) 13 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. This section is to contrast love with all the dramatic displays of things of every kind. In each instance, it uses hyperbole, a legitimate figure of speech which is not literally true to fact, to make that point. Without love, it's nothing even if I know ALL The Answers and have ALL The Knowledge. (Is it possible to LITERALLY know ALL The Answers and have ALL The Knowledge? Obviously not.) Without love, it's nothing even if I have a faith or believing that can move mountains at will. (Is it possible to LITERALLY have faith to move an entire mountain? Obviously not- through all the centuries where someone's claimed that was LITERALLY possible, none of the billions of people have LITERALLY done it. And many people would have loved to-and it would have made a fantastic commercial for God Almighty to see it demonstrated. It certainly would have closed a lot of discussions on the subject of God.) Giving 100% my possessions to feed others and my physical body (the one thing left me) for burning-is it LITERALLY going to happen? Not by any SANE Christian, so OBVIOUSLY Paul wasn't trying to start you off on a project or give you a goal to shoot for. Each instance included actions-and took them to an absurd level to make a point about how love was much more important no matter what. So, we started with the example of languages. All accounts before this showed a demonstration of languages that someone recognized, and someone present understood- which made them not only human languages, but CURRENT languages spoken LOCALLY by SOMEONE if not many people. So, speaking in languages of men and angels- was Paul saying it was possible to speak in languages OF ANGELS? Look at the construction of the sentences- in each case, there was an absurd exaggeration. In I Corinthians 13:1, the absurd exaggeration was someone who was able to Speak In Languages to the degree they could communicate beyond all human language and Speak In Angelese.

A professor of chemistry wanted to teach his 5th grade class a lesson about the evils of liquor, so he produced an experiment that involved a glass of water, a glass of whiskey, and two worms. "Now, class. Observe closely the worms," said the professor putting the worm first into the glass of water. The worm in the water writhed about, happy as a worm in water could be. The second worm, he put into the glass of whiskey. It writhed painfully, and quickly sank to the bottom, dead as a doornail. "Now, what lesson can we derive from this experiment?" the professor asked. Johnny, who naturally sits in back, raised his hand and wisely, responded, "Drink whiskey and you won't get worms."

And what did he say about how he ripped off Bullinger's books to form pfal and RTHST? TW:LIL, pg-210. "She gave me my first copy of Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible. She said, when she first heard me teach, that I taught like he wrote, and I'd never met the man or even read his stuff." ============================================ ============================================ Most of you are aware that there were 2 types of book that say "by Victor Paul Wierwille" on the cover. The SECOND type-which came later-were written by committee, and the research staff wrote 100% of the contents except the introduction/preface. That's books like "Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed" and "Jesus Christ Our Passover." vpw himself otherwise provided zero percent of the contents. The FIRST type-which describes most of "vpw's" books- were the result of taking one book of one author and retyping its contents, or taking more than one book and inserting chapters and retyping their aggregate contents. Almost all of vpw's "signature books" fall in this category. =========== Ok, then, starting off.... The White Book, "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today"... RTHST's 1st edition was Jack E. Stiles' "the Gift of the Holy Spirit", with a few words moved around. Its introduction included an anonymous reference to a man of God who taught him on this subject. That's the Stiles whose book this was a complete photocopy of. Later editions deleted all mention of ANY man teaching him on the subject (3rd edition and later). Later editions also featured EW Bullinger's "the Giver and His Gifts". (This book is currently available under the name "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit.") The Bullinger book is the source of the 385 occurrences of "pneuma" in the New Testament. (Which vpw was unable to even pronounce correctly.) ========= Juedes documented some of this very well, years ago... http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stolenrthst.htm http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stiles.htm http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_sources.htm ================= The "Power For Abundant Living" book was, of course, a transcription from the class of the same name. The Orange Book's origins therefore are the same as the origins of the class. In its first iteration, that meant it was the exact same thing as Leonard's CTC Gifts of the Spirit course. Later iterations pruned out the Advanced class from the "PFAL Foundation" class, and filled in the remaining space with Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible", and culminating the class with Sessions 9-12, which were Stiles and Bullinger's works on Holy Spirit. dmiller: "I have a few books by Bullinger, including Word Studies on the Holy Spirit and How To Enjoy the Bible. Word Studies is the list of the 385 usages of pneuma hagion, with a short commentary on each verse. Imo -- everything you have ever heard docvic say about the various usages of PH, seem to have come directly from this book by Bullinger. How To Enjoy The Bible has many sections with familiar headings: *No Private Interpretation*; *define words by their biblical uage*; *All scripture .....*; *context of where it is written*; *absent from the body, present with the Lord*; and more." ============= The "original" PFAL (what I call its first iteration) was a clone of Leonard's class in EVERY detail. Leonard's class had imaginary characters called Maggie Muggins, Johnny Jumpup and Henry Belocco. (I'm not sure about Snowball Pete or Herman B.) Leonard was Canadian. Maggie Muggins was a children's television character easily recognizable by his audience by name. (As if you said "Captain Kangaroo then said..." or "then Big Bird said...) Johnny Jumpup is the name of a plant. Using those 2 names as characters in a class, however, that was straight out of Leonard. Herman Belocco probably started due to an inability of vpw to precisely recall EXACTLY what was in Leonard's class-so sometimes it was Henry, sometimes it was Herman. Snowball Pete was mentioned ONCE in pfal, and doesn't match the pattern Leonard normally used-normal first name, possible normal last name. This suggests-if I may engage in wild speculation-that this was made up by vpw in a pitiful attempt at originality. One of our posters-who took Leonard's class-said that vpw even ripped off Leonard's speech patterns and style, which made it eerie to hear Leonard teach after hearing vpw imitate him. Leonard handled publishing under Canadian Christian Press. vpw handled publishing under American Christian Press. Someone also pointed out that one of Leonard's books contains an introduction that slightly resembles one of vpw's claims. Expand it, add grandiose claims, and an imaginary snowstorm, and you have the 1943 promise. (Leonard never claimed God told him he was unique nor mentioned the 1st century church to him.) Leonard never made a claim of a "miraculous" event. This, however, is from 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." ================= In other news.... "Are the Dead Alive Now?" is a compilation of some of Bullinger's works, most notably "the Rich Man and Lazarus: an Intermediate State?" and "King Saul and the Witch of Endor: Did the Prophet Samuel Rise at Her Bidding?" Most readers will note that vpw also ripped off the "title with question mark" in addition to the content of the books. "Studies in Human Suffering", later called "Job: Victim to Victor", was taken from Bullinger's book "the Book of Job". That became a large chapter in one of the "Studies in Abundant Living". ====================

How about BG Leonard? vpw took the ENTIRE contents of pfal class 1.0 from Leonard's class, UNALTERED. What did he say about Leonard? TW:LIL, pg-207. "He loved me, and I learned some stuff from him. He had tremendous believing. That's why I love the guy." "The summer of 1953, our whole ministry went up-Dotsie and Donnie and some of the others from Van Wert. We took his whole trip- really learned a lot about the other manifestations of the holy spirit. But he worked from personal experiences. I worked what he taught from the accuracy of the Scriptures. When I came home, I made up my mind that I was going to tie the whole thing together from Genesis to Revelation. So I did, and in October, I had the very first 'Power for Abundant Living' class. At that time, the Foundational Class and Advanced Class were together-the whole thing in two weeks. But the syllabus today is basically the same. The basic principles from the Word are the same. The class has filled out. But I knew the greatness of our age-the age of holy spirit and that every truth must fit in the framework of the manifestations. I just had to teach it to somebody." "I taught without a syllabus, but the class was the same. You could throw the syllabus away now and I could still teach it. It's a burning reality in my soul." ========================================= ========================================= What did he say directly about how he got the 1st edition of RTHST, which was Stiles' book plus some books by Bullinger, and ONLY what they contained? (Mostly Stiles.) (1954) TW:LIL, pg-209. "Somewhere in there I wrote the first holy spirit book. I can't remember exactly what year. I'd been working those 385 scriptures and they began to all fall into place." "We're having the sixth edition printed now of that book: Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. It's a great piece of research." And, after having lied so thoroughly (and throughly) about it, he makes the following "disclaimer": "Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it together so that it fit-that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped. Vale from Florida was the one who taught us about interpretation and prophecy. But he didn't understand the other manifestations. It took BG Leonard and others to teach us healing and believing. But in the holy spirit field, our piece of research is the most thorough and original coverage of the subject. And believe me, I've seen about everything in that field. No one really goes into it." Some people-ignorant of how citing sources works- keep claiming that the off-hand comment buried on page 209 of a book most people never read works as a blanket citation of sources for everything vpw ever did.

Ok, the White Book's Preface, pages ix to xi, which is the ENTIRE preface.) ======== "When I was serving my first congregation, a Korean missionary asked me, 'Why don't you search for the greatest of all things in life which would teach Christian believers the HOW of a really victorious life?' This challenge was the beginning of a search which led me through many, many hours of examining different English translations, the various critical Greek texts, and Aramaic 'originals', looking for the source of the power which was manifested in the early Church. Finally I realized that the experience referred to as 'receiving the holy spirit' in the Scriptures WAS and IS actually available to every born-again believer today. I believed to receive the gift of holy spirit and I, too, manifested. Ever since receiving into manifestation the holy spirit, I have had the desire to put in written form the longings and fears that were mine regarding the receiving thereof. I believe that sharing my quest with the believers who are today seeking to be endued with power from on high may be instrumental in leading them to the answer of their hearts' desires. I knew from the Bible that what God sent at Pentecost was still available. It had to be, for God does not change. I knew that the receiving of the power from on high on the day of Pentecost had meant increased ability for the apostles and disciples years ago, and that I needed and wanted the same blessing. I knew that if the Church ever needed the holy spirit in manifestation it needed it now. Throughout my academic training in a college, a university, four seminaries, from the commentaries I studied, and from my years of questing and research among the various religious groups claiming adherence to the holy spirit's availability, there appeared many things contradictory to the accuracy of the recorded Word of God. I knew their teachings were sincere, but sincerity is no guarantee for truth. The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for, the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must fit like a hand in a glove. If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book. Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God's best. If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this live, you may find your answer while reading this book. It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted, and comforted. For those searching the Scriptures, desiring to know the reasons why, how, what or where, I suggest you do a careful study of the introductions as well as the appendices in this volume. For those who simply desire to receive, read chapters 1 though 5 and enjoy God's great presence and power. "II Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." To his helpers and colleagues every writer owes a profound debt. This seventh edition has been read and studies carefully by men and women of Biblical and spiritual ability. To all of these I am most grateful." ========= End of Preface. ============================================== =============================================== It is interesting to compare the Preface to the White Book, 7th Edition, which I already quoted, with the Preface in the 2nd edition. ===== Here's how one paragraph ORIGINALLY read in the 2nd edition, (pg-8): "The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all I had been taught and start anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. It took me seven years to find a man of God schooled in the Holy Spirit, a man who knew the Scripture on the Holy Spirit, and could fit it together so that I dod not have to omit, deny or change any one passage. He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a glove, and when you can do that, you can be assured of having truth." ======== Here's the corresponding paragraph in the 7th Edition, the one most of us got to read: ====== "The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for, the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must fit like a hand in a glove." ====== Interesting how the other man just VANISHES from the picture, no? It's as if vpw later wants to take exclusive credit ("I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook") for something that was exclusively the result of Stiles-the UNNAMED Christian-working for God ("...He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a glove...") ============================================ ============================================ TW:LIL, pg-179. "The Word is buried today. If there's no one around to teach it, God has to teach it Himself. You see, I am a product of my times. God knew me before the foundations of the world, just like He knew you and everyone else. We were all in God's foreknowledge from the beginnings. God knew I would believe His Word. And every day I am more and more deeply convinced of this ministry which teaches people the accuracy and integrity of God's Word." pg-181, reminscing after the 1942 promise... "That's where I was sitting when I prayed to God to teach me the Word and show me how." (Mind you, page 178, he said "I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on." So, this watershed experience in his life, the details seem flexible. He even asked at least 2 different things...) pg-190. "If no one is around to teach you the Word, and you are hungry, then God has to teach you in the framework of your knowledgeable experience. For example, if you're an athlete, He'll do it through athletics. If you're a farmer, He'll teach you through farming." pg-201. "You see, learning is a process. You don't learn overnight. The holy spirit field-that's the field God raised me up for. There's not a question that cannot be answered biblically. And there's no one I can't lead into speaking in tongues if they are Christian and want to do it. No matter how much knowledge you have of God, God seldom allows you to teach more than people are able to receive. Some things God taught me that night in Tulsa, I've never taught- no one would have been able to receive them." Go ahead, stop implying and suggesting, come right out and say it instead... "Everything I learned, God taught me. That's what I teach you."

Oh, right. But my example of "rest to the soul" is on-topic. (It wasn't on the green card, however, as Raf pointed out.)

When looking at vpw's acknowledgements and bibliographies, we can see who he gives credit to, and who he doesn't. For those who've missed previous discussions, it might be worth going over his official statements and what they mean in plain English. ========== Ok, the Orange Book. There IS NO bibliography to this book. In case you're wondering, that would be one reason a donated book would be refused for a college library. The dedication is to his daughter. Remembering that this book is part Bullinger, part Leonard, and part Norman Vincent Peale/ positive thinking, we have seen no mention of any of them in the book. Even the "about the author" leaves out all 3 names. What DOES the introduction say? Here it is in its entirety. === "Introduction: the Abundant Life. Jesus' proclamation as recorded in John 10:10 is the foundational Scripture for this book. ...I am come that they [believers] might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. This verse literally changed my life. My wife and I began in the Christian ministry, plodding ahead with the things of God, but somehow we lacked an abundant life. Then one time I was especially alerted when I read from the Word of God that Jesus said He had come to give us life more abundant. I was startled into awareness. As I looked about me at communities where I had served and among the ministers with whom I had worked, the abundant life was frequently not evident. In contrast to these Christian people, I could see that the secular world of non-Christians were manifesting a more abundant life than were members of the Church. Thus I earnestly began to pursue the question: 'If Jesus Christ came that men and women might have a MORE ABUNDANT LIFE, then why is it that the Christian believers do not manifest even an ABUNDANT LIFE?' I believe most people would be thankful if they ever lived an abundant life; but The Word says Jesus Christ came that we might have life not just abundant, but more abundant. If His Word is not reliable here in John 10:10, how can we trust it anywhere else? But, on the other hand, if Jesus told the truth, if He meant what He said and said what He meant in this declaration, then surely there must be keys, signposts, to guide us to the understanding and the receiving of this life which is more than abundant. This book, POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING, is one way of showing interested people the abundany life which Jesus Christ lived and which He came to make available to believers as it is revealed in the Word of God. This is a book containing Biblical keys. The contents herein do not teach the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21; rather, it is designed to set before the reader the basic keys in the Word of God so that Genesis to Revelation will unfold and so that the abundant life which Jesus Christ came to make available will become evident to those who want to appropriate God's abundance to their lives. " =========== That is the ENTIRE introduction. There is no other prefix, appendix, etc to the book. What ELSE did the Orange Book say on the subject? [pg-119-120.] ===== "For years I did nothing but read around the Word of God. I used to read two or three theological works weekly for month after month and year after year. I knew what Professor so-and-so said, what Dr so-and-so and the Right Reverend so-and-so said, but I could not quote you The Word. I had not read it. One day I finally became so disgusted and tired of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3000 volumes of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying The Word- its integrity, its meaning, its words. Why do we study? Because God expects us as workmen to know what His Word says." ============= As a sidenote, if he read FOUR books a week (one more than he claimed), every week, every year, it would take 15 years to make it thru 3000 volumes without rereading any. (4 books times 52 weeks is 208 books a year. 15 years at that pace should do it.) That's while he was completing his education, working, travelling to India, and so on. That's leaving aside the issue of where one keeps 3000 books...