WordWolf

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...

Someone asked about the actual sources of material, like Bullinger...

The how all Scripture explains itself was straight out of that book. Bullinger also wrote extensively on "Figures of Speech" and wrote a book with that title. Bullinger also wrote "Witness of the Stars", which was one of the 2 books that were used when writing "Jesus Christ: Our Promised Seed". Bullinger also wrote 2 books, both with titles phrased as questions, on the subject of the dead. vpw claimed to write a book on the subject, with the same content included, and the title was phrased as a question. "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.

The green card had the list. Supposedly, the list was compiled in response to grads who claimed those benefits. In reality, they seem right out of the last 4 sessions. For example, "rest to the soul." vpw claimed that, if you missed a few hours of sleep, you could SIT and then you wouldn't need the sleep anymore. He also touted it as a cure for insomnia- SIT and you can drift off to sleep.

Plagiarism does not have time-constraints. COPYRIGHT has time-constraints. When Ralph Woodrow wrote "Babylon Mystery Religion", he took Alexander Hislop's book "the Two Babylons" and rewrote it into a reader-friendly, modern book. Hislop's book was no longer under copyright. That meant that Woodrow did not have to pay royalties to a copyright holder for use of the contents. He could use 100% of the contents without paying a cent- which is what he did. What he DID have to do, however, was CITE HIS SOURCES. All over the book are endnotes for each chapter where he correctly cites Hislop's book. "The Three Musketeers by Alexander Dumas" is a book that's no longer under copyright. So, any publishing company can print the book- but they have to correctly credit Alexander Dumas for writing it. That's why you can get a print copy fairly cheap, relative to the size of the book. ==================== Furthermore, any dictionary can have a copyright- and they do. There's no copyright on "dictionary" or "Webster's Dictionary." So any printing company can use either phrase, but they'd need to make up their own dictionary. Merriam-Webster and American Heritage are 2 companies that make up their own, and they're fine pieces of work. The original dictionary by Noah Webster, however, should be public domain. You could reprint the entire thing, so long as NW's name was on it. Shakespeare's works are all public domain by now. Lots of things have been based on them without paying for their use. However, Shakespeare still has to get credit for his work-you're required to CITE SOURCES.

My part in the thread was peculiar, for those who followed the whole thread. Initially, I avoided participation because I thought the tone was far too antagonistic. (I figured that, if this is the "After" picture, I can skip adding more acid to my lifestyle.) Once it cooled off, I kept up reading, mostly. My initial position was similar to the twi one, but without a depth of conviction. I hadn't led anyone into it in decades. As the thread proceeded on, the position that the modern, twi-style was nothing like the Pentecost style proved to be well-supported, and the other position had nothing to dispute it- neither anything I could think of, nor that others could think of, could account for the differences. So, I CHANGED MY POSITION COMPLETELY for the purpose of this thread's topic. To clarify: this changed nothing about my convictions about God. This changed nothing about my convictions about the Bible. This dramatically changed my convictions about the SIT that twi taught me. I do not know if the Pentecost style is "available" today. I am convinced I haven't seen it, and the twi system doesn't teach it. So, if it's not possible, the sooner I divest myself of the twi style as allegedly that, the better. If it IS possible now, why would I bother looking for it if I thought I'd been doing it for years? Oh, and acknowledging all that, I STILL SIT in the modern style. I don't use it for what twi recommended, and don't believe it's anything that isn't originating from me. It does have legitimate uses once one gets there. " Whether or not there is real SIT, the assertion is that the twi style itself was education in, and practice of, how to COUNTERFEIT the actual experience of SIT, with social reinforcement filling in the gaps. (We all wanted to SIT, we were told it was fantastic, we were told this is how it's done, all our friends wanted us to SIT, we wanted to SIT, so when we put the twi counterfeit into practice, we were eager to believe it was the genuine and not the counterfeit, and our friends believed the same.) Whether or not that's true, the evidence points that way." Although I DO believe that there were a few incidents with a real message from God Almighty, I also now think that the TIP instances were mostly mundane. "That's what I did when I attempted to SIT. When I meant to interpret or prophesy, I looked for a message to bless the people at hand, something God wanted them to hear. With no immediate revelation (in nearly every case, I think), I reached into my subconscious mind and into my experience WITH these messages in twi and produced ones that sounded like everyone else's. And I never MEANT to lie or fake it. I meant to serve God. I meant to bring forth messages at God Almighty's behest. I meant to do the right thing." "As to Sociology, any Sociologist (or competent undergrad student) could design a social structure for an organization that would have the participants, the members, taught that free vocalization was divine, and that if they trusted God, both syllables not connected to any language and lacking the structure of any language would be directly of God. They then could go on and teach the people that, if they trusted God, the people could "interpret" that, and that the words in their own language that immediately followed would be of God, and that God wanted them to. Then the only things needed would be some samples to acculturate the people so they "knew how it worked." That's exactly how the "slain in the Spirit" people work, and the people who "dance in the Spirit." They expect God to deliver, and they do something and expect God to provide the specifics. They sincerely believe that's how it works. Ok, so that's a framework that would provide the expectations. The only missing things would be the actual utterances. Any improvisational actor can produce free vocalization. If their instructions were clear, they could free vocalize and speak in their language after that, insisting that was the translation. With some preparation and samples to draw from, they could produce results identical to the twi experience- stand up, speak without a language, then speak in their language and sound EXACTLY like the expected interpretation. Any adult could do the same with some training. With the proper mindset, any adult could be taught to do that and believe it was all directly from God. As for "prophecy", that's even simpler. They'd just need a sampling to draw from, so they knew what it sounded like. Any improvisational actor could keep going as long as needed or instructed. Any non-actor who was convinced it was of God could do it all the time. So, COULD it all have been faked? Yes, it could all have been faked. We were taught it was real. We had expectations it was real. We expected that if we uttered syllables, God would provide meaning, and we had samples of what other people's speech sounded like. (I've noticed that most modern SIT in twi sounded the same no matter what state the speaker was from.) As for interpretation or prophecy, yes, with expectations raised, and samples to draw from, you'd get well-intentioned people who provided them and thought they were from God. The speakers were primed, the listeners were primed. Nothing was questioned, nobody WANTED to question it." "Improvisational actors are trained in a wide variety of skills that would affect their ability to do this. However, conmen can do it as well. And anyone can learn to do it. It takes longer when someone has to believe they're doing something spiritual rather than something mundane, but it's easy if you have the right setup. You need the right patter to prime them (like when vpw says things for THREE FULL SESSIONS like "Don't you want to speak the wonderful works of God?"). You need lots of people to provide social context and social pressure. You need people over at least 3 nights (more is much more effective) to demonstrate what it looks like "during manifestations." Months of it is more effective than nights of it. When Session 12 rolls along, the pigeon/student is primed to go, and if they don't SIT on cue along with the entire room, then someone comes over to them directly to get them going, and takes them aside if that doesn't work. With more time and practice with the first step, the next steps become easy. The Intermediate spends a LOT of time on prepping people to believe that the next thing is of God. One guy I know had been waiting to do for years, and was complaining that several sessions went by without getting into it- they just kept getting into "You can do it." "I know I can do it, show me how!" Each Intermediate had groups where we did it and set up the new students perfectly to expect to do the same and what it looks like. Instead of an acting instructor, we had a class instructor, hours and hours of prep to prime our expectations, then hours in individual groups where people learned more by observation and practice. One of the most important things, which is easy for some people to forget, is all the previous exposure to the stuff in meetings, and again there. So, the person knows what the result is supposed to sound like. I could design a class exercise for acting students to look the same. The only difference is that the acting students would know they are faking it. (Ok, the 2nd of 2 differences would be I'd do it in a fraction of the time because the acting students would know they are faking it, and I could skip straight to the ingredients of the specific performance- how to move, how to stay, how to make the SIT sounds, what components to place in the "interpretation" and what components to leave out, etc. The result would either look like an Excellors Session, or a full meeting, depending on what I designed the thing to look like." "The thing is, when people went/go through the INT class, it's NOT in a void. They had months of "fellowships" with months of samples of what the "messages from God" are supposed to sound like and look like. So, they know what to expect, and have social conditioning that everyone else expects exactly that, too. THEN comes the "you can do it" pep talks for a few sessions, THEN comes the "how to" in the sessions/excellor sessions/ small groups. Also, don't forget that any sampling of people will cover "normal distribution." Some will lag behind (and may need private sessions on top of months of prep and sessions of pep talk) and some will surge forward (and may do the stuff with only the exposure from 12 sessions of pfal or from seeing a few meetings and following the instructions in the books.) So, there will always be a few examples of people who need very little exposure. We never really discussed the "slow cases." What qualifies as a "short period" is different for people who know they're faking it and people who would be convinced they were doing it supernaturally. A class of actors could do it in one long session-provided enough examples of material were provided. Faking a language, pious manner, those are easy. Most of it will be details of the meeting, then samples of the "messages from God." So, it COULD all have been faked. I'm convinced at least some of it was NOT faked. I'm not sure how much, but SOME. (Much less than half. Maybe 5%, maybe 1%, maybe less.)" [And yes, obviously that's a guess on my part.]

I wonder how many people ever hesitated at the obvious difference between "seed" (as in a birth) and the involvement of an external, discrete spirit, which bears no resemblance to a birth or of "seed" in any definition. vpw needlessly spirit-ized the meaning (what else is new?) and vpw REALLY ran with it.

If one presumes that this was part of a larger dialogue, and one rather sensibly concludes that "the serpent" was not a description of a literal animal, but rather a descriptive nickname (like "the Dragon" for Bruce Lee or calling someone a fox, a sidewinder, a jackal, a vulture, a pig and so on), then it took place in some kind of language-and one of reasonable sophistication (not some crude code like "hand signals" but something like English, Spanish, French, German, Italian or the like,) where there's sufficient vocabulary to discuss in detail.

[Actually, MR AP, I explained that in the first post of the thread. "It's not meant to be a discussion of Doctrine- feel free to revive the Doctrinal thread or start a new one if you want to explore the doctrinal implications. This is about the mechanics of "free vocalization", what it is and is not. I think this is a subject worth discussing by itself- that got buried in a previous discussion addressing a lot more. So, I've meant to start this thread for some time." It's neither DOCTRINAL (nor religious nor theological) nor ABOUT THE WAY (its about the practice done by actors, small children, etc.) This practice has been called "baby talk" and "gibberish" in different contexts, but also "free vocalization" when someone wanted a more proper term to discuss the practice. It's more respectful, and lacks the pejorative elements the other phrases contain.] [by saying I was diverging completely from Doctrinal to discuss something completely independent of Doctrine, yes, the discussion started with doctrine but I felt an entirely separate discussion of exactly this was called for, and we can clearly discuss specifically this practice- those of us who honestly want to and not attempt to drag it off-topic.] [Less than a page in, and it seems you didn't get what the thread's about. It's been clearly explained above. Rather than repost everything a few lines below where they were posted, I'll just recommend re-reading it slower and paying attention. I was clear and stayed on-topic, and the same was true of waysider.] [Allan, sounds like you want to take the one thread SPECIFICALLY designed to AVOID DOCTRINE, and take it OFF-TOPIC into Doctrine. There's an entirely other thread in Doctrine already about that. This thread is valuable all on its own, discussing non-Doctrinal things. I would rather you not attempt to rob it of its focus and uniqueness by making it a duplicate of an existing thread.] [if you have a post that actually addresses "free vocalization" without being specifically Doctrinal or About the Way, PLEASE repost it here, or link it and I'll do so. (Providing it actually isn't Doctrinal or About the Way.) We have threads in those fora about those things already, this is intentionally separate. And, rather than bury this discussion deep in a separate discussion, I thought it was valuable all on its own and deserved to be available on its own. It appears waysider, at least, agreed with me.] [This thread, rather specifically, is about discussing "FREE VOCALIZATION", a practice common OUTSIDE OF TWI. This practice is not "About the Way." It's about a practice of small children and aspiring actors. This practice is not about "Doctrine." I know the posters CAN understand this, and most do. Those who REFUSE to understand this are doing so INTENTIONALLY, since I do not accept they're too stupid to see the difference when the CONTENT of the thread is otherwise. Then again, we're probably getting people SKIPPING THE CONTENT OF THE POSTS and then posting and objecting to both the thread and the posts. That's intellectually dishonest as well as dishonorable.]