WordWolf

What The Hey:

I certainly can't speak for you, but VPW highly encouraged us to do our own research and not just take his word for it. I distinctly remember at a number of "Weekend in the Word" conferences he highly encouraged people to do their own research and he also said many times to us, "read it for yourself". He also demonstrated how he did biblical research at these "Weekend in the Word" conferences so we could learn how to better research the Word of God on our own and for ourselves. (This was circa 1970's). NOW if that weren't so, I know for a fact I'd still be a trinitarian today.

You see, it wasn't VPW who convinced me JCING, it was me because I decided to research it for myself. The sorry thing of it is, TWI quit doing those conferences to help people make full use of the biblical materials and the resouces for biblical research that they were originally introduced to in PFAL. I believe it's one of the primary reasons why TWI failed, and why TWI is so screwed up today.

is not the way to objectively examine or to most fairly evaluate the accuracy of the materials.

There's a bias there, which will affect your results.

Moreover, if you WANT to legitimize his stuff, that will further bias your results.

That having been said, some people have examined his work, and concluded by the standards

espoused in pfal, pfal falls short of its stated performance.

That also having been said, I've seen what WTH considers sufficient for his own standards,

and I'm not impressed. A lot of things could pass HIS standard that wouldn't come close

to passing mine.

There's also a selective memory in effect here-

those who came up with conclusions contradicting vpw were NOT embraced by vpw,

nor was their work studied to see if he could improve his own.

vpw's position was retained, and the other person's was suppressed.

That's why even the response to the "Adultery" letter wasn't so shocking-

suppressing the "unpleasant news" was standard operating procedure at the way.]

I just gave you the answer [above] to the reason why your experience in TWI was very different than mine. I'm sorry I can't tell you exactly why TWI stopped these "Weekend in the Word" conferences where we got into the core principles of biblical research - other than there were more pressing needs in the ministry at the time. I think this was right around the time when all the Ted Patrick/deprogramming stuff started happening, and even some peoples lives were at stake - i.e. the M*nty Pelt* deprogramming case being one of many.

[Actually, your answer did nothing of the kind. Frankly, the Ted Patrick/Deprogramming things

were a windfall for twi- vpw was able to use them to monger fear and get everyone to

"circle the wagons" because those evil deprogrammers were out to get them.

Also, the experience of any one person is irrelevant here-the consistent pattern of the criminal

is what we're looking at. If he does not commit a crime Tuesday, and we're watching him

Tuesday, that doesn't mean he's become a fine, upstanding citizen.]

I'm sorry if you (and others) see VPW as someone who used the bible to manipulate and gain power, when he was actually there for God's people - especiailly at times when they needed him the most. Are you still looking for sympathy from others because of this? Well, I'm so sorry to hear just how badly you and others here had gotten short changed and were literally "screwed" out of your own "good bible experience" by VPW.

[some of the time, he taught some good Bible. Some of the time, he did some nice things for some

people. Some of the time, he taught things that were very harmful. Some of the time, he did some

despicable, evil things to some people.

The times people needed him to be godly the most were the times he was in the middle of

committing dark, corrupt acts, and compounded them by shrouding them in

the legitimacy of a clergy title. THAT's when they "needed him the most." That's when he

really should have made the effort a normal male does to try to "be the man he knows himself

to be".

To hide this is to facilitate evil by hiding or excusing it, and those are actions never sanctioned

by Scripture. Calling evil "good" is roundly condemned.

Of course, WTH can't see that evil actions deserve some outrage because they're wrong.

That requires a working conscience. Instead, he can only conjecture why normal, healthy

adults would be angry about vpw's crimes. No, we're not looking for sympathy. Most of us-

especially the males- were never raped or drugged by vpw. (At least not physically.)

We're outraged over crimes that were committed, and crimes labelled "acceptable" using

a cloak of legitimacy by misusing clergy positions, and crimes covered up by a number

of people- and still being covered up to this day-or at least attempted so.

The blessing of the LORD makes rich, and He adds no sorrow to it.

The blessings of vpw made a few rich, and added crippling sorrow to a few others.

That's not acceptable to almost everyone,

and if it wasn't vpw doing it, it wouldn't be acceptable to anyone.

BTW, I think the above quote is a perfect example of the types of response one can

expect from a dulled (seared) conscience when faced with suffering resulting from

evil acts. No sympathy, just a rude joke.

If WTH is the "after" picture, I feel confident that few people will be rushing to

sign up for whatever program produces this.]

...and some people are totally freaking clueless as to the nature of the discussion.

Fer krap's sake, character isn't some gee-dammm freaking light switch......how pathetically inane and sophomoric can a 50 year old adult be to think " I think he had "good charater", whatever the eff that means, when he taught the word....

here's some Word for you klueless klem kadiddle-hoppers----- a fountain puts forth not bitter water AND sweet---or didn't you know that??????

OM, you take the freaking cake.... :confused:

See,

you can look at PART of the life of one guy,

and say that MOST of the time, he was a good man.

He was considered a pillar of his local civic community,

a member of the Jaycees,

and even entertained children as a clown.

HOWEVER,

character is not a "part of the time" thing.

Most people would say that-although only a tiny fraction of the time John Wayne Gacy

spent in his community was spent killing young boys- that tiny fraction of time

was sufficient to erase any supposed good the community received when he

wasn't kidnapping, imprisoning or killing.

Character is what you are 100% of the time-

not 25% or 50% or 75% or even 95%.

If you are the scum of the earth, you can spend relatively little of your time

killing, raping, molesting, and so on,

and people will consider you scum.

That's not an inordinate amount of focus on evil deeds.

That's putting the focus on where it should be.

When discussing anyone but vpw, just about everyone on the planet

has no difficulty getting this.

The way labeling appears to work in the Bible is that it specifies a particular behavior of a person as such a dominant characteristic as to warrant them that title. Thus a person is called a "thief" because he steals. An "adulterer" is one who commits adultery. I wouldn't confuse the issue by saying any of these people have an "evil character." People are complicated beings and the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary says "character" is the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person. So perhaps another way of describing a person who has a long-suit in lying - would be to say that the person has a serious character flaw in personal integrity.

Look at a directive in I Corinthians 5 for dealing with an immoral person who refuses to repent – it says the person is to be expelled! Note especially the use of labels in verse 11 "…you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler…" Wow wee – I bet Paul never would have imagined all those sinful traits being wrapped up in one little ol' plagiarist of the twentieth century?

I Corinthians 5:1-13 NIV

1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3 Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

6 Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.

9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

Interesting - the instruction is to expel - not embrace the immoral person. From what I remember in studying the background of I and II Corinthians - this act of excommunication was instrumental in a particular immoral person repenting - and in II Corinthians Paul encourages them to welcome the person back into the fold with open arms. The immoral person repented between the time-frame of when I and II Corinthians were written...

My point - I'm not condemning anyone to hell or labeling anyone as evil-incarnate. Maybe if some of the leadership of a little ol' religious outfit like TWI would have had the guts to confront VPW early on - maybe things would have worked out a whole lot differently! If you notice Paul's reasoning for expelling this person was because of the bad influence it would have on the whole church of Corinth [verses 6 to 8]. There were always people around who chose to look the other way, cover up, or minimize, rationalize or some how justify VPW's despicable behavior – and I think they bear some of the responsibility in allowing his influence to poison an organization. And judging by the posts of some VPW-defenders here at GSC – there's still people around who wish to carry on that nefarious mission – thereby perpetuating his insidious legacy.

Well,

while we wait....

"You're going to have to get the Enterprise to the Neutral Zone before it's too late."

Since there are a number of opinions in play here concerning plagiarism-

and many of them are disseminating incorrect information concerning plagiarism-

it seemed like a good idea to go over what everyone in the US who've never

heard of vpw, pfal or twi say on plagiarism and the related subjects.

First,

What is plagiarism?

http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_wh...plagiarism.html

"What is plagiarism?

Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense:

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means

1) to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own

2) to use (another's production) without crediting the source

3) to commit literary theft

4) to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward."

Can it really be theft if it's ideas and words? How do you steal ideas and words?

(same source)

"But can words and ideas really be stolen?

According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file)."

What are some examples of plagiarism?

(same source)

"All of the following are considered plagiarism:

-turning in someone else's work as your own

-copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit

-failing to put a quotation in quotation marks

-giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation

-changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit

-copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not"

What if I change some words around and it's not an exact quote anymore?

(same source)

"Changing the words of an original source is not sufficient to prevent plagiarism. If you have retained the essential idea of an original source, and have not cited it, then no matter how drastically you may have altered its context or presentation, you have still plagiarized."

"If I change the words, do I still have to cite the source?

Changing only the words of an original source is NOT sufficient to prevent plagiarism. You must cite a source whenever you borrow ideas as well as words."

So, can I use the words of others at all without plagiarizing?

(same source)

"Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism."

What if I didn't MEAN to plagiarize?

(same source)

"It doesn't matter if you intend to plagiarize or not! In the eyes of the law, and most publishers and academic institutions, any form of plagiarism is an offense that demands punitive action. Ignorance is never an excuse."

As is commonly pointed out in some circles,

IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE.

Further, ACCIDENTALLY killing someone with your car is still a crime, even if you had no intention

of hitting THEM or ANYONE with your car.

What's plagiarism like in the academic world?

(same source)

"Most colleges and universities have zero tolerance for plagiarists. In fact, academic standards of intellectual honesty are often more demanding than governmental copyright laws. If you have plagiarized a paper whose copyright has run out, for example, you are less likely to be treated with any more leniency than if you had plagiarized copyrighted material.

A plagiarized paper almost always results in failure for the assignment, frequently in failure for the course, and sometimes in expulsion."

What's plagiarism like in the professional world?

(same source)

"Most corporations and institutions will not tolerate any form of plagiarism. There have been a significant number of cases around the world where people have lost their jobs or been denied positions as a result of plagiarism."

What's plagiarism like under the law?

(same source)

"Most cases of plagiarism are considered misdemeanors, punishable by fines of anywhere between $100 and $50,000 -- and up to one year in jail.

Plagiarism can also be considered a FELONY under certain state and federal laws. For example, if a plagiarist copies and earns more than $2,500 from copyrighted material, he or she may face up to $250,000 in fines and up to ten years in jail."

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

"Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?"

Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get the protections of criminal law.)"

But, isn't it ok if this works as "free advertising" for the original work?

(same source)

"It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising."

It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do."

=======

In short,

plagiarism is bad, very bad.

It is a crime, and it is morally wrong, and it is easily avoided.

It is also not a difficult concept to grasp.

Unless one is trying hard to excuse it.

It amazes me that some people think plagiarism relies on many things that have nothing to

do with plagiarism.

A) Intent.

"Until I see a confession that the person intended to plagiarize,

I don't consider it plagiarism."

Plagiarism is plagiarism whether the person admits to it (no crime's dependant upon a confession),

and intent doesn't affect plagiarism.

What makes this especially silly is that any high school student, let alone college or

grad school student, is well aware of what plagiarism is and how wrong it is.

So, "ignorance of the law" is not an issue here. Any high school graduate who plagiarized

INTENDED to plagiarize.

In this particular case, it is part of the complete picture, taken with what he DID say on

the record, that demonstrates he set out to put forth that himself was some great one.

B) Identical phrasing.

"It's only plagiarism if the exact same words are used in the exact same order."

Hogwash.

If one says that initially, one demonstrates a lack of understanding of plagiarism.

If one CONTINUES to say this, then one demonstrates a determined ignorance

of plagiarism, a dogged persistence to ignore what plagiarism means and how

it works, even faced with clear explanations of both.

If a writer takes the exact words from another writer without citation,

that is plagiarism.

If a writer shuffles some of the words of another writer around,

and swaps in some synonyms, maybe shuffles the paragraph around,

and doesn't cite his source,

it is STILL plagiarism.

That's the same thing as the first case, with a few cosmetic changes to try to

deceive his audience.

Of course, one may see all the explanations of how plagiarism works for

everyone except those trying to excuse vpw of plagiarism

(99.9999 of the population or more, plus all the legal definitions, and the ones

used in courts of law, all institutions of learning, and by virtually all Christians),

and decide

"well, I'm coming up with my own definition of what plagiarism is and whether it's

a crime."

That's about as legitimate as saying

"I'm coming up with my own definition of what murder is and whether it's a crime."

You'll end up with a definition that is meaningless to anyone but you and carries

no force for any other English speaker.

Can we see a new face take a turn?

"What do you read, my lord?"

"Words.

Words.

Words."

"What is the matter?"

"Between who?"

"I mean, the matter that you read"

"I see a cherub that sees them."

"In second husband let me be accursed-

none wed the second but who killed the first!"

A little more than kin, and less than kind."

"These are the best actors in the world!

Either for tragedy, comedy, history,

pastoral, pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral,

tragical-historical,

tragical-comical-historical-pastoral.

For the law of writ and the liberty...

these are the only men."

"What do you read, my lord?"

"Words.

Words.

Words."

"What is the matter?"

"Between who?"

"I mean, the matter that you read"

"I see a cherub that sees them."

"In second husband let me be accursed-

none wed the second but who killed the first!"

I remember that now, they were the Jablonskis.

According to Bud, the smart Kelly was frigid, too.

I thought most people didn't pick up how funny that was.

(Well, I thought it was funny. Whatever.)

I'd like to have a "new" person post one,

not one of the usual 3-4 suspects.

If not, I can post one, but let's see someone new take it!

Just bringing this up for the new folks.

If someone's having trouble finding a new avatar, we might even be able to help out...

It's easy to look into SOME of the plagiarism that appears in that book.

It's a combination of 2 of Bullinger's books:

"The Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?" and

"Saul and the Witch at Endor: Did the Dead Rise at Her Bidding?"

Note that the question format was stolen also.

Now, the former of those books appears here in its entirety:

http://philologos.org/__eb-rml/

(That site also has it available as a PDF.)

Uptown,

forgive me if I remain cynical that this will result in any changes other than cosmetic

at CES/STFI. Too much work and too much humility needed to truly revamp the

group-they'll need to gut much of the current focus, and that's going to take admitting

their foci were completely wrong.

I think they're going to keep their baggage, make no real changes,

announce an exploratory committee to examine some stuff and be very vague

about what they're doing, maybe announce that a few times,

and that's the last real action you're going to see on that. Ever.

CES/STFI is free to prove me wrong on that-and I hope they will.

However, I'm thinking about a leopard and spots here.

I used to have to log in twice when logging in-consistently, every single time-

but I didn't get logged out otherwise.

I AM mindful of being "timed out", but it hasn't happened yet.

I just discovered that if I wait for the log in and ignore the link to click when waiting,

it finishes and I don't have to repeat it. I hope this works consistently.

The ad was advocating mentoring.

What other positive ways are there to prevent children from ending up in gangs, on drugs and alcohol, or falling through the cracks?

Neo,

Hello. :)

This is some rough, harsh stuff to go over.

You might want to go slow, and take some time to digest it.

There's no hurry, and you can go at any pace you can adjust to.

You don't have to impress anyone by accepting it fast, or not having emotions

about it, or any other action. You don't even have to impress yourself

by showing off, either. :)

We can pick up any discussion of same months from now, whenever you've

read everything and digested it. We'll be here.

After reading this thread, it occurs to me that filling one's head with "knowledge" from someone with a proven lack of "character," (and holding onto it as precious treasure, instead of the garbage it is) can really affect "who I am."

Bingo.

We've seen a sermon while hearing one, on this thread.

20 points for ex10.

You win the internet.

(snip)

VP said during AC '79 that anyone who is ADAMANT about the trinity is possessed. He didn't say anyone who believes in the trinity, just adamant about it. I have witnessed to many trinitarians and some of them, when they realize that I don't believe Jesus is God, become very unpleasant.

[so strong-convictions=possessed. What's next, witch-hunts?

Gonna check if someone has fur inside their skin to prove they turn into a wolf?

Check for moles as proof of a bargain with the devil?]

Yet, I've posted before of my experience in a Presbyterian church during the late 90s where a minister's sermon included that verse in Luke where Jesus prayed to God asking Him "not my will but thine be done"; the minister used that as an example that even Jesus was hesitant to trust and obey God. Now that minister is trinitarian, but somewhere in his mind he knows that Jesus was tempted like the rest of us mortals and that he wasn't really God the creator of heaven and earth.

I might have said something like "he might be more ready to consider that maybe Jesus

isn't (not wasn't) God the Creator of Heaven and Earth."

But you know he partly doesn't believe it, somewhere in his head.

Amazing.

If you can do that face-to-face, you'd clean up on Jeopardy!, Millionaire, and Weakest Link.]

So, to answer your questions; yes, I'm prejudiced against JJ. I've read enough of his stuff that I think he DOES have venom toward VP that clouds his judgement. Not simply because he's trinitarian, but as I said he's a SERIOUS trinitarian and the venom is a symptom of it, IMO.

[i appreciate your candor.

Strong convictions means "possessed", and "emotional against vp" means "bad judgement".

Evidence, apparently, is irrelevant.

Me, I would think that a laundry list of the crimes of a criminal would be WORTH

some emotion, but I don't speak for everyone.]

And, no not everything in PFAL is 100% right on, but it deserves a lot more appreciation than to just be written off as "deception".

[someone said it was all "written off as 'deception''? Who claimed that one.

Most claim its contents are SUSPECT because they were assembled and presented

deceptively. A few people discount all Christian endeavours, and thus pfal gets

dismissed with all other Christians, but that's hardly the popular position here.

Who's been posting this, John?]

[WordWolf in boldface and brackets again.]

The accusation of plagiarism is an extremely complicated and baffling proposition the critics are making.

[No, it's very simple. Middle-school students understand it.

Even supporters of vpw can understand it.

Taking the works of others and pretending you wrote them is plagiarism.

Using their work without giving them credit for their work is plagiarism.

If you take the material, the exact words, the structure or the subjects,

and don't cite your source-thus giving them credit- that's plagiarism.

Plagiarism is a crime.

It's legally wrong, morally wrong, ethically wrong, and criminally actionable.

It shows a lack of respect toward those you plagiarized (you stole their credit),

and your audience (you insult them and rob them of sources).]

The critics want people to believe VPW was a shoddy and incompetent biblical scholar so he “ripped-off” teachings and doctrines from other authors (attempting to show that he plagiarized them word for word) but at the same the critics will not admit the authors he “supposedly stole” from were doctrinally wrong themselves - but rather their teachings and doctrines are biblically accurate and orthodox. Their venom toward VPW has only blinded them to their dichotomy.

[Not at all.

The rightness or wrongness of the material a plagiarist stole is irrelevant to the plagiarism.

Someone who plagiarized lcm's stupidest rants, or a KKK Grand Wizard's racist spew,

or "Dick and Jane at the Beach" is as wrong a plagiarist as someone who stole from

the greatest works of Western Literature, or Sun Tzu's "the Art of War".

vpw stole from the works of others.

In some cases, he plagiarized word for word,

in others, he plagiarized paragraph for paragraph, or concept for concept.

This lack of understanding of how plagiarism isn't negated if you shuffle the words

around or paraphrase the original book is sad, since it's been explained over and over

in plain English, and is still false.

He has been demonstrated-beyond a REASONABLE doubt- to have done so with

Stiles, with Bullinger, with Leonard.

Those who don't acknowledge that-or are afraid to look at the side-by-side comparisons

of the original work and the plagiarized work- do not invalidate the successful

proof of same.

And repeating one's previous invalidated claims-exposing one's lack of understanding

of what's already been disproven- STILL does not change one's claims into truth.

That having been said, it's been stated A NUMBER OF TIMES (which WTH has missed, of

course, being an indifferent searcher before making his OWN claims) that there's no

guarantee the original works were accurate. The simplest example was Bullinger's

own error concerning the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God.

Biblically, the usages of the 2 terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.

However, Bullinger believed they were NOT, and vpw plagiarized his explanation.

vpw was wrong to plagiarize, and was doctrinally wrong when he printed this

PARTICULAR error. I suspect vpw's own laziness in checking the work, or lack of

skill in checking the differences (or possibly both), led him to support this error.

It takes no great skill to look up all the usages of both and compare them-

and we have (although cg beat us all to that one, AFAIK.)

Now, other subjects, there's doctrinal disagreements as to many of them-

as to what is error and what is not. Few people-and none I'm aware of-

ever claim Bullinger, Stiles or Leonard are inerrant.

Such a claim originates with WTH's post, as he mischaracterizes those he disagrees

with. Most people can recognize a Strawman Argument when they see it.

Here's one now.

Also, just because vpw was shoddy and incompetent as a Bible scholar is no guarantee

that THIS was his motive for plagiarizing the works of others. We know he studied

HOMILETICS (how to give a sermon) rather than any Bible-related subject, but that's

no guarantee that was the sole reason he did this. More likely, he took works he thought

were superior to his own-and would not be recognized- and put his own name on them

(pausing to put them in books with his name on them) in order to put forth that himself

was some great one, and wanted others to believe that he had a unique connection to

God Almighty and be a superior source for Godly material than any other the person has

heard of. This succeeded beyond his wildest expectations, as some people STILL believe

this one.

That all this has been discussed has been missed by WTH.

Possibly, this is because his venom towards those who've examined "vpw's books"

has only blinded him to the discussions. ]

Ever wonder why the same critics don’t bother to declare the original gospel writers of holy writ were incompetent and likewise failed to properly document their sources? Now that would be a more valid argument rather then bothering with the writings of VPW.

[Ever wonder why someone who believes the Bible is The Word of God would actually try

to invalidate Holy Scripture in an attempt to draw attention from the plagiarism of a man?

The "writings" of vpw have been shown-to any REASONABLE standard- to have been plagiarized.

Rather than admit this, they'd rather attack the Holy Bible instead, considering invalidating

God's Word rather than admitting something that is NOT God's Word is not actually

God's Word. ]

God forbid one should attack an original writer of the holy writ though, as today it’s only plausible and feasible to do so with a contemporary commentator on the scriptures.

[God forbid I should ever declare "the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God Almighty" in one breath and

hypocritically attempt to invalidate it in the next breath.

May my own honesty forbid me from calling a plagiarist a "commentator", or a homileticist a

"researcher", or a man called to take down Holy Scripture a "thief".]

Take for example John’s bold declaration of Jesus’ work and ministry recorded in the gospel of John 21:25.

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

Let’s consider these facts. Jesus could only be at one place at one time. Likewise he could only reach, teach and minister to a limited number of people considering he had to travel by boat or by donkey or had to walk in order to reach them. His life and ministry was cut short and was extremely brief. Just with those facts about Jesus’ life to work from, John must have been an extremely lazy and incompetent gospel writer not to properly document and record the “many things” Jesus had done. When one considers the brevity of Jesus’ life, it’s hard to assume even a short book could have ever been written about the “many things” Jesus did.

[Or, that which was written was determined by God (which one believes if one calls the Bible

"the Word of God", and God Almighty determined that those specific accounts were related,

and that because its internal testimony of itself is true.

That would mean John 20:30-31 was true.

30And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Amazing how someone can believe The Bible is The Word of God, and not only skip

one chapter to attempt to invalidate its testimony based on the NEXT chapter,

but also attempt to invalidate it altogether!

Think God Almighty appreciates this?

Can you face the man in the mirror like this?]

OK then. John was not only incompetent in the proper documenting and recording of the works of his Lord Jesus, but we also see he had the audacity to exaggerate the facts and boldly declare the WHOLE WORLD could not contain the books that should be written! Imagine that! What total and complete incompetence, as well as arrogance on top of it from one of Jesus’ own disciples!

[Or John wrote what he was told to-and no more.

Further, if he himself "supposes" something, he appears to be STATING HIS OPINION for a moment.

After all "I suppose" does not appear all over Scripture, but it appears THERE.

Seems hyperbole to me, which vpw students consider a legitimate figure of speech, one of

212 (not the 217 that Bullinger listed, but the 212 mentioned in pfal, with over 40 under 1 heading)

that they consider legitimate components in The Word of God.

Since any reader can easily tell this is not literally true to fact (120 years on the earth could have

been covered by books completely filling, say, Jerusalem or Ephesus, and this was far, far short

of that), it should be obvious this fits the very definition of a figure of speech-as in

"that which is not literally true to fact", a working definition any twi'er should know in his sleep.

And yet, one can't recognize that, and seizes on it as an excuse to attack Holy Scripture,

an act vpw himself roundly condemned. Imagine that! What total and complete incompetence,

as well as arrogance to claim to know better than God Almighty!]

I can’t speak for you, but it’s extremely difficult for me to believe Christianity is in a pickle and VPW’s character as a Christian is invalid because he failed to properly cite his sources.

[Christianity is doing as well as can be expected-far better than vpw apologists ever claim.

vpw's character as a Christian is invalidated because he voluntarily chose to plagiarize-

which means he knew he was supposed to properly cite his sources.

vpw's character as a Christian is also invalidated by the rapes, druggings, and other

things he did as well, but you wanted to discuss his plagiarism.]

Why don’t the critics consider that Jesus’ own disciples couldn’t properly record and document the facts as they were?

[Answered-see above. It was properly recorded and documented to the satisfaction of the

standards of God Almighty.]

Oh, they can’t do that - that would be blasphemous you know.

[sloppy research, in this case, as well as blasphemy.

But some vpw apologists don't let blasphemy stop them in attempting to excuse their

favourite criminal of his crimes.]

Apparently Jesus’ own disciples not only failed to properly record and document the facts as they were, but they also had the audacity to exaggerate the facts as they were!

[Answered-see above. This claim is without merit.]

Is that what you believe about the disciples of the Lord?

[Despite your ill-documented claim, no.

vpw didn't believe it either, and taught otherwise.

So you're contradicting vpw's own teachings in a sloppy attempt to vindicate his crimes.]

If so, then one has no justification to criticize VPW for improper documentation, although apparently many of the facts the critics make regarding VPW’s character are certainly exaggerated. (Perhaps I should copyright this before a “wolf” comes along to chop it up and plagiarize it without my knowledge and permission. After all, I have my rights to protect too - don’t you know.)

[A) We never made such a claim-you did, so that's a standard we cannot be held to (as in your "if so"-it is NOT so.)

B) vpw was demonstrated to have refused to document properly,

which has been shown with side-by-side comparisons with books vpw has been shown

to be VERY familiar with, so such claims have been DOCUMENTED, not

"exagerrated", and certainly not "certainly exagerrated."

(Then again, when blasphemy is not enough to stop someone, what can a little thing

like conventional, everyday lying do? One's conscience is too sluggish to react.)

C) I always cite my sources, and those looking at the top of my post can see the poster and the

exact post from which it was taken. Thus, so long as I show the original, I can comment

freely and criticize freely. I respect the rights of those who blaspheme and lie as much as I

respect the rights of those who seek to serve God in a fashion HE specified, and as much as

I respect the rights of those who completely reject the Bible and God.

I learned that sort of thing from God Almighty, who made the rain to fall on both the just

and the unjust.]

Ok, next movie.

"What do you read, my lord?"

"Words.

Words.

Words."

"What is the matter?"

"Between who?"

"I mean, the matter that you read"

"I see a cherub that sees them."

Hang on, I'll need to do a little quote-seeking first.....

The "badges of authority" worn by the dysfunctional frauds that lead those organizations often blind those closest to them. No stranger, friend or neighbor would behave this way and evade the light of sound judgement, but a "man of God" gets a free pass because we have agreed to attribute his/her motives to spirituality (to God, actually).

"Godly anger." Remember that one, old-timers? That was Way lingo for Vic Wierwille's temper tantrums. Eventually, every Corps snot with a bad attitude learned to call it godly anger too. Who were we to judge? They wore that badge of authority, conferred NOT by God, but by a multitude of suckers who didn't realize where the power really came from.

You certainly are misrepresenting when you claim he copies whole books and put his name on the cover.

Who are you kidding? I mean even Dr. Juedes isn't THAT extreme.

That might sound like an exaggeration.

However,

A) RTHST was entirely a cut-and-paste of content from other authors-

primarily Stiles and Bullinger.

The driest section, I'm sure you can recognize, was the contents

of Bullinger's book now known as "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit",

the 385 references to "spirit" in the New Testament.

B) Some of Bullinger's books were pretty small.

Take all the content of ADAN,

remove the content of "the Rich Man and Lazarus..." by Bullinger,

and remove the content of "Saul and the Witch at Endor", by Bullinger,

neither of which is cited in ADAN,

and what you get is the cover, the intro and the acknowledgements page.

I could go on (like mention the Orange Book's contents), but everyone who is

able to get the point has already gotten the point.

He took large amounts of material from books, sometimes their entire contents,

and put them into "his" books, sometimes making up their entire contents.

That's what I said, the evidence supports it, and that's what he did.

And it was a crime each time, because he didn't cite his sources when he did that.

======

BTW,

you were fine with him demoting parts of Genesis, then?

You were conspicuously silent on that while trying to deny

aspects of vpw's plagiarism....

Character flaws will come out in your ministry and do great damage if not controlled. One point that was made was that virtually all of the qualifications for a leader in Timothy & Titus are "character things"

Some attempts to the contrary,

THIS is what this thread is about.

Amazing how there's been multiple attempts to change the subject-

accusing Moses of plagiarism, calling "vpw's books" "the word of God",

denying the extent of his plagiarism....

Wordwolf, I think you are mistaken.

This is why I attempt to get things in writing, because people make mistakes.

Well, since it's on the tapes from ROA '79, and vpw said, proudly,

"It Is Available",

I consider that as authoritative as vpw putting it in writing.

Perhaps HE was mistaken.

Perhaps he didn't know that the policies had changed at least 3 years ago.

If so, he suddenly seems to know a LOT less than he usually did....

Speaking of "plagiarism" I noticed that in Genesis 5:1 it says this is the book of the generations of Adam and then in chapter 37 verse 2 says these are the generations of Jacob. There are 2500 years covered in the book of Genesis alone, none of which were contemporary with Moses, who is credited with writing it. Could it be...that Moses had to read much material written by other people and then decide which writings were the word of God and which weren't and then crank out a final product?

Yet Moses is the one who gets the credit with writing Genesis through Deuteronomy. If it was anything other than the word of God, then what VP did would be unethical, but from God's view, it's irrelevant.

Fascinating.

See,

if Oakspear or George Aar said this, I wouldnt bat an eye. It is consistent with their

general positions- that the Bible is not THE Divine Book, direct from God.

However,

one who claims it IS is now suddenly trying to downgrade, to demote, parts of

Holy Scripture. Is he doing this because he no longer believes it is The Word

of God?

No, it seems he's demoting part of the Book of Genesis in an attempt to absolve the

plagiarizing fraud, vpw, of wrongdoing when he knowingly took the books of others,

moved some words around, and put his name on the cover, pretending they never

wrote THEIR books.

And while we're at it, "vpw's books" (the works of others rephrased or reprinted

with vpw's name on them) have now become

"the word of God."

Am I misunderstanding it? You tell me.

If it was anything other than the word of God, then what VP did was unethical, but from

God's view, it's irrelevant.

Character flaws will come out in your ministry and do great damage if not controlled. One point that was made was that virtually all of the qualifications for a leader in Timothy & Titus are "character things".