WordWolf

Sure hope it's 9:48 EASTERN TIME....that wasn't mentioned....

Her sister's in NYC, so that seems likely.

And FoxNewsChannel.

9:48am is almost upon us, those of us near a tv set....

I think the one thing twi was any good at managing was anger.

in twi, anger growth received unprecedented heights not seen outside twi in any Christian group.

Many of these other angry preachers have to take a second place to the hateful,

destructive, punishing speeches in twi, especially in private.

Lately, however, I think that the outside world has surpassed twi again,

and now twi can't even claim the best screamers and hatemongers.

Entirely NEW hatemongers and screamers have risen outside their hallowed halls,

surpassing twi's current crops of bile.

I think there's several words that might be applicable here:

-Arrogance.

The "we are better than anyone else and don't dare look at any other group unless it's to make fun

of them because there will be side-effects of looking away from our truth" thing.

-Hardness of heart.

The "look how terrible those other Christians are having it because their leader messed up!

Sure sucks to be them! I'm glad we're in here instead" thing.

-Hypocrisy.

The "we can freely criticize, condemn and openly mock any leader of any group that makes any mistake

we are aware of, but dare to question any of our leaders, even those admitted to wrongdoing in a court

of law, and we will punish you with social sanctions, verbally berate you and kick you out if you don't

stop" thing.

I'm sure there's more-those sprang to mind at the moment.

As promised here.

Absent corroborating testimony from former members of the editorial/research staff I cannot give much (if any) credence to your accusation that they wrote either book and merely slapped VP's name on the cover giving him credit for having wrote them. This (your accusation) amounts to no more than gossip, which is malicious.

You didn't look very hard for the accounts before jumping to a conclusion.

I mentioned one poster and one source in passing.

Apparently, you didn't check EITHER.

vp & me, lcm himself claimed that vpw objected to something in the manuscript of JCOP, and found out that

a man who had left THE TEAM working on it was supposedly the source of the attitude.

"He had been working extensively on it."

Whether or not there was such an attitude, whether or not such attitude was the result of

this man, it's evident vpw and lcm knew that the book was a GROUP EFFORT,

not "an author and a staff of proofreaders."

Knowing this, and comparing the early stuff-the SIALs- with JCOP and JCOPS, are you the only

person who sees that the style of writing COMPLETELY DIFFERENT?

When one person writes, they demonstrate a writing style. When a pair of writers write,

they demonstrate a style. When the writers change, even secretly, those who WANT TO KNOW

can read the books and see the style has changed. The writing style of the Orange Book was different

from the writing style of the White Book, and both were entirely different from the style-

and it was a consistent style- of JCOP and JCOPS.

Completely different. Any objective observer would AT LEAST be suspicious that the same authors

were not writing each of them (except the last 2 together.)

Then they'd look further.

You're not even ready to compare the styles, nor see if there's evidence others wrote them.

Then you're willing to call someone who exposes the truth a

GOSSIPER when they're exposing truth that's hidden.

That's malicious.

I certainly wasn't trying to falsely misrepresent what you were saying. Thus, I posed a question to determine if I was misunderstanding you. Coupled with your other statements on this matter, this: "I'm saying that vpw edited and "wrote" the first 2 editions of RTHST," might impress upon your mind how I became confused as to what you were saying. And if it doesn't – then so be it.

change that. I DO wonder, given how eager you are to sweep the subject of plagiarism under the rug and

absolve vpw of his commissions of same, just how "accidental" it is that your HONEST attempt to

understand took a hard left turn. It may be you can't look at it WITHOUT the hard left turn.

If my understanding of your comments proved out to be correct, then it would be logical to conclude that only those who actually wrote the books would be guilty of plagiarism. VP might have been an accomplice in that activity, by endorsing the product as being his work, but only the ones who actually did the writing have done the act.

The Orange Book and White Book were plagiarized by vpw working by himself. I have no proof he had staff

working with him when he plagiarized ADAN. It also adds nothing to the books he stole ADAN from,

unlike JCOP and JCOPS, which add to their sources and properly document- like any REAL research book should.

JCOP and JCOPS DOCUMENT THEIR SOURCES. The Orange Book, the White Book, and ADAN do not.

In other words, JCOP and JCOPS were not "by victor paul wierwille", who slapped his name on the work of others.

That's DISHONEST, and that's a SHAME, and that's DECEPTIVE, and treats all the REAL writing and editing staff

SHAMELESSLY- which is immoral, and wrong to do, both for the staff, and for the reading audience.

I am not aware that it is a CRIME, depending on if the staff consented to have their work taken from them

and have vpw's name added to it. They may have all been so loyal that they were incapable of seeing

the wrongness of vpw's action, and consented. That may have qualified the books to have been

"ghost-written" in a legal sense- OR IT MAY NOT. I've never looked into that aspect.

As for the truly plagiarized books, those were vpw, his xerox machine, and his tape and scissors.

vpw was guilty of plagiarism. He took the works of others OUTSIDE OF TWI, and stole their work without

citation, in unlimited amounts. That's plagiarism, and that's what he did.

That's a FELONY, as well as deceptive, dishonest, and a shame.

He could have gone to jail for that one and served hard time.

I'll presume you didn't understand the full import of what I was saying. To put it less ambiguously – I had been aware of VP's plagiarism early on in my involvement with TWI. I simply didn't care about the origin of his teaching. My focus had always been on the truth of what was said. I studied the writings of Bullinger as much as those writings of VP 'cause I was fascinated with the usage of figures of speech. It was during this time that I came across Bullinger's book "How To Enjoy The Bible."

Were you aware that virtually everything he claimed credit for, was taken directly from someone else,

including much of Bullinger's work that he never mentioned?

And when Bullinger DID come up, he claimed that Bullinger came to his conclusions

SEPARATELY from vpw- that vpw studied, then saw Bullinger found the same answers, and not

that he found the answers IN BULLINGER? He claimed his introduction to Bullinger was

"he writes like you teach", and claimed Bullinger's books as corroboration for what he taught-

which can only be true if it was not THE SOURCE of what he taught.

If you knew he committed FELONIES, and DIDN'T MIND AT ALL that he committed FELONIES,

DECEIVED everyone, and STOLE THE ROYALTIES due the holders of copyrights,

and didn't care or don't care now-

then say so outright-

"Yes, I'm well aware that he misrepresented himself to everyone, claimed he wrote books written

by others, taught classes taught by others, claimed they were all HIS WORK and not directly taken from

the work of others, stole the royalties, stole the credit, and avoided doing his own work,

even to putting his name on books written by a team of writers,

and I still don't care."

If you say that, then I can think that's morally wrong, but we certainly won't be disagreeing that

vpw stole the work, stole the credit, made out that himself was some great one,

and built up an image of himself that was the product of the quality work of others.

vpw plagiarized. Do you say "I freely admit he plagiarized and I don't care?"

That would be original. Everyone keeps trying to either say he didn't plagiarize or otherwise

absolve the wrong or crime from his plagiarism,

or says it was wrong when he did plagiarize.

As I mentioned elsewhere – I had been saying (to a select few) long before the downfall of TWI that many would "fall away" from TWI when VP died simply because in my estimation very few actually understood what he was saying in the above. Many had elevated VP to god-like status in their minds and that was unscriptural. To this day I vividly recall an incident (during the 74 AC at HQ) where another believer attempted to make me feel guilty for what he perceived was an act of disrespect I had done towards VP – THE MOG. He was successful, for after considering it for a bit I approached VP to apologize and I'll never forget the look on his face – in essence it was the look of "What the hell are you talking about?"

Falling-away from twi is really an issue if twi is not worth leaving in the first place. If it was built entirely

on lies, and the backs of the rank-and-file who were cheated by the lies, most of us say it's a non-issue and it

was WORTH LEAVING, and that twi FELL AWAY when it was founded on DECEPTION AND LIES.

In conclusion -- I've never denied the accusation of VP's plagiarism. It would be foolish of me to say he wasn't guilty when I've known the charge to be true.

and ADAN, at the very least? If so, please say so clearly. I'll be very surprised to see it.

You'll certainly be the first.

But, unlike many I have no interest in proving it, for what really matters is whether what he taught was the right dividing of God's Word. If it isn't – then discard it. However – if it was -- then as he stated in the above quote – we should be ". . . strong in what they say because of The Word . . . ."

You looked like you were trying to DISprove it earlier, when you claimed that the writers of JCOP or JCOPS

were guilty INSTEAD- therefore that vpw is INNOCENT.

I can requote you if you want, and spell it out if you don't see it.

However, if that is what you really mean to say

"vpw plagiarized A LOT, and I don't care," please spell it out.

(I for one have no intention of haranguing you on that if you do, although I reserve the right

to discuss legality and rightness when it comes up.)

As many of us have said- and the vpw apologists keep pretending we DIDN'T say,

plagiarism has no bearing on the CONTENT of the plagiarized material,

on the accuracy of what's presented.

"Truth from the pen of a plagiarist is still truth." -Raf.

An entirely separate issue is whether or not any of what he taught was truth.

This particular thread/discussion is on plagiarism, not on doctrinal accuracy.

There's been many threads on many things vpw, lcm and twi taught,

and whether or not they measure up and are actually true,

regardless of the source. There will be many more.

This is not those threads.

But we can point you to some of those threads if you want.

Break it down:

-- VPW plagiarized and it matters.

-- VPW plagiarized and it doesn't matter.

-- The tooth fairy told me that VPW didn't plagiarize.

Those are the only three sensible positions to take.

Like I said, there should be 2000 or less adults across the USA currently in twi.

Some adults leave each year, with far fewer joining every year.

Children raised in twi often leave as soon as they can.

Those that DON'T are so mentally crippled that they are barely significant even IN twi.

(In those families they didn't succeed into intimidating against having KIDS.)

The young are smart enough to look up twi online when they hear of it-

IF they hear of it. They see enough reason to run away.

The old are slow to join strange religious movements.

twi is losing membership numbers every year, experiencing "negative population growth".

That means they can't keep their numbers the SAME-they lose more people than they gain.

twi membership average ages go up and up...composed of fewer and fewer people who

hang on because they're old and slow to LEAVE strange religious movements as well.

New members? No.

Old members? Sometimes they leave, sometimes they die off, sometimes they don't.

Without replacing the numbers-and they haven't done THAT since the 1980s-

they get smaller and smaller every year, and it is inevitable that they will shrink into

nonexistence, and die out like the Shaker communities.

(Although the Shaker communities were nice people.)

Every year both groups get smaller and smaller, and eventually will die out entirely.

I, also really enjoy The Message along with other versions of the Bible. It has really helped to deepen my understanding and to make me think beyond just the doctrines taught to me. If I have questions regarding something, I keep looking. Sometimes I find the answer, sometimes I don't, but it has been a great exercise in thinking.

The main reason for a twi-er to criticize versions like "The Message" is that they are PARAPHRASES,

thus they contain the opinion of the professional working on it, which can change the meaning of a

verse.

Guess what? The so-called "literals according to usage" are all PARAPHRASES, thus they contain the

opinion of the person working on it- and usually they lacked the education the professionals outside

of twi had.

Were they as careful? If so, answer this....

Philippians 4:13, KJV. "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."

Philippians 4:13, twi. "I am ready for anything and equal to anything through him who infuses inner

strength into me."

My question?

WHY DOES CHRIST DROP OUT OF THE VERSE WHEN THE SO-CALLED "LITERAL" IS GIVEN?

That's one criticism of of the so-called literals:

When twi made their version of verses,

Christ drops out of them.

WordWolf has some great points about the internet and Biblical research. It's very easy to find lots of information online that will help you to understand some of those difficult scriptures.

To me, the literals according to usage were very burdensome to read. They seemed to be filled with twi jargon - and no one in the real world really talks like twi does or did. They attach certain definitions to words that may or may not be true according to the generally accepted definition.

Things in there were dropped, things not in there were added.

"Making it your own" is a good example. By looking at that phrase, I would think that it meant that I should study the material so that I could understand it for myself using my own experiences, thought processes, and logic. I might even do my own research so that I could understand the context or the people involved... But that is not the definition attached to it by twi...

LCM used to say that we were to go to all of twi's materials and look at them with the heart that we wanted to be "as convinced of the truth as our teachers." That does not allow for questioning, additional research, additional anything. We were to make their doctrine our doctrine without question. We were to line our thinking up with theirs no matter if they said something as ridiculous as the "all women belong to the King" doctrine that stated that David as the man of God had not sinned by committing adultery with Bathsheba. There was to be no questioning that, even if it was downright stupid and against all common sense.

Don't know what vpw did when people dared to question him, right?

They were punished by verbal humiliation in public.

If they didn't repent, they were thrown out, unless vpw was in a bad mood.

If so, they were just thrown out.

That's what lcm was taught, and that's why he did it as well.

Just make sure you think for yourself and read the Bible with THOUGHT behind it and trust your own thoughts - God made you and He made you able to think.

So long as you CHOOSE to exercise that which God gave you.

Wait, that sounded familiar. I may have seen this.

"Law & Order?"

“Without father, without mother: There is nothing said about the genealogy of Melchizedek in the Genesis 14 passage or anywhere else. As far as the Biblical record is concerned, he has no father or mother, no beginning of days nor end of life.” Guzik.

Is this how you understand it, Wordwolf? If so, then as I was….if not, would you please explain?

The thinking thing: after spending so many years in twi not thinking at all, it is rather important to me now to think, and to do my own thinking as much as possible. Then I need you guys who have spent more time at sorting out the chaff from the wheat than I have. It is quite a large task to do alone. (I sometimes wonder if there was any wheat in twi).

Here's how I see it.

A figure of speech is not literally (and generally, obviously) not-true-to-fact.

Mel literally had parents- a mother and father. I expect the Jews had no problem understanding that.

However, priesthoods in Israel were by family line- one tribe-Levi- produced the direct servants of God.

(IIRC, one was delegated to cover 12 because the 12 refused to cover the planet.)

So, AFAIK, priests were specific Levites who were so delegated, generally from generation to generation.

Remember, back then, professions were generally handed down, father to son, father to son, ad infinitum.

In contrast, Mel didn't come from a long line-before and after him- of Levites, priests, rabbis,

or otherwise servants in the temple or whatever.

Mel just shows up, and then doesn't show up.

Mel was mortal, and was born, had parents, lived, got older, served God, got old, and died-if one is speaking

LITERALLY.

If one is speaking FIGURATIVELY, he appears and vanishes.

[WordWolf in boldface.]

Homophobes are the ruling class demons of the devil spirit kingdoms of this world [Law]

I suppose then, that homonyms are gay nyms?

The only greater enemy [hate] of liberty is capital punishment...

And SIN has nothing to do with it? "The wages of sin is death"

Homophobes and capital punishment have committed the greatest crimes against the law of liberty...

So, which was the devil- a homophobe or a capital punisher?

What was Adam-a homophobe or capital punisher?

For the last enemy to be destroyed will be capital punishment.

Right.

Right after every single person who isn't worth keeping around is destroyed-

by capital punishment- with the lake of fire.

(Unless you think they suffer eternally and consciously in the lake of fire.)

:)

Two for about a week. Can we get some MORE quotes or go on to the next movie?

At the current rate, unless someone cheats or someone arrives who recognizes either quote,

we can spend the rest of the month accumulating 1/2 a dozen quotes.

Hey, Mark.

Gonna hang out and play with the rest of us for a while? It's been too long.

I am claiming that Melchisedec was a type of Christ.

We know nothing of Melchisedec's parentage...therefore he is "without father and mother"

Christ, as God the Son, is (outside of His physical incarnation) eternal. "I AM"

Both are identified as having eternal priesthoods outside of the levitical order.

As priests, both would offer sacrifices to God the Father. Melchisedec is identified as having accepted Abraham's offering...Christ is identified as having offered Himself as a an eternal sacrifice (thus the referencee to Rev 5:6)

And the kicker is that Melchisedec is called the "king of Salem (peace)" and Christ is identified as the "prince of peace"

The thing is that if one accepts the doctrine of the Trinity this typology is perfectly obvious. If not, then Heb 7:3 is very problematic.

I don't see why being a Trinitarian Christian or a non-Trinitarian Christian should make this any less clear.

This has never been opaque as long as I've read this.

WordWolf replies in boldface.

I have been writing in blogs for over ten years on the internet.

Happy anniversary.

I have had many unkind things said to me...

I've had a few. If I'd had a LOT, I might wonder if perhaps I was inviting trouble.

I do not let them bother me in the least...

You might-they might be warning signs.

I just go on and speak the word deeper and even more and eventually they get the message.

So, they can agree with you or they can be wrong. Nice.

That I am not one of those wimpy Christians that lives by the law but I live by the law of liberty.

Insult your fellow Christians for whom Christ died, go ahead. Christ wouldn't...

I have long ago grown into the full measure of the stature of Christ.

You've "arrived." Congrats. I haven't gotten to where I intend to get. You must be one of

those super-Christians with the red cape and blue longjohns.

This FULL measure is the law of liberty

Relying on vpw shackles your understanding. I shall explain below.

The more than abundant life hinges on the law of liberty

Jesus spoke about life more abundant. (John 10:10.) When you add a word to the word of God, do you still

have the word of God? Even vpw said you don't....and you added a word....

Our salvation hinges on this liberty

Our salvation hinges on our saviour.

Did God change or did man change?

False dilemma. God doesn't change, and man is too stupid to learn.

I hope this has helped in your understanding of how to view the Gospels.

Oh, I'm SO enlightened now!

We see the change from man's wisdom to God's wisdom.

Where? You announced we see it, but didn't go to a verse.

Along with this change comes first the practice of liberty [in Christ] and then the doctrine of liberty [in Paul].

THIS IS "THE WAY"...

JESUS CHRIST is "THE WAY", and all other "ways" are pretenders.

I'd like to take this opportunity to address an error concerning our liberty in Christ, and how badly-mangled

the Bible's teaching on this was when we were learning.

vpw said-right in pfal- that if you love God and you love your neighbor,

"YOU CAN DO AS YOU FOOL WELL PLEASE."

I submit that the point of this was to de-emphasize loving God and loving your neighbor,

since that's the only way you can do what vpw REALLY wanted to teach,

"YOU CAN DO AS YOU FOOL WELL PLEASE."

Let's see what Jesus said on the subject, shall we?

KJV.

Luke 10:25-27.

"25And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

26He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."

Here we see the first part of what we said-"love God, and love your neighbor as yourself."

Now let's see the SECOND part-when Jesus gives an example of what that means.

Luke 10:28-37.

"28And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

29But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

30And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

31And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

32And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

33But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

34And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

35And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

36Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

37And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise."

Jesus gave an example of loving your neighbor-funny how he specified it was about NEIGHBOR,

and not LOVE.

The priest and the Levite in Jesus' example, I suspect, offered a prayer for the man who was beaten and robbed.

They offered the standard twi level of compassion.

"Give them The Word, pray for them, but if they have a physical need, tell them to suck it up and make

sure they attend pfal on time."

Then the priest and Levite proceeded to "do as they full well pleased."

The Samaritan-a fellow of questionable religious knowledge (unlike the priest and Levite)- was the example

Jesus used- a man who didn't consider the personal cost to himself (although he obviously could afford

what he did without impoverishing himself) but instead took compassionate ACTION to him.

He spent his own TIME and his own MONEY, and had no expectation of receiving any favours in return.

Jesus at no point advocated "doing as you fool well please", unlike vpw.

=======

Ok, let's suppose we can blow off Jesus' words, like we learned in twi, and only focus on the Epistles.

"They're addressed to us! We can follow THEM and blow off the 'previous administration'!"

In Romans 14, we see specifics "that have your name on them", as vpw said.

Romans 14:13-21.

"13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

15But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

16Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

18For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

19Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

20For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

21It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak."

We have liberty in Christ, but if we think "do as you fool well please" is what it means, we don't UNDERSTAND

the liberty we have in Christ. If our freedom allows us to put a stumblingblock in front of a brother in Christ,

we are not to use that freedom. A free Christian is FREER TO DO GOOD, but NOT FREER TO DO EVIL,

or to do that which God says not to do. A Christian CAN do these things, but a Christian IS NOT to do these

things. Out of love, he voluntarily limits his freedom.

Is this bondage? Is this legalism?

Is this being "a wimpy Christian who lives by the law?"

NO.

This is doing what God said to do.

Even our liberty to eat foods offered to idols has limitations.

I Corinthians 8:1-13.

1Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

2And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

3But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

4As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

7Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

8But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

9But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

11And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."

So, out of love for God and brethren, we are to use our freedom to FREELY CHOOSE to limit our actions,

to help our brethren.

So, can we at least make fun of "wimpy Christians", and turn aside? If we have to limit ourselves,

can we just leave them alone after that? After all, someone once claimed

"Weakness always brings down strength."

Sadly for the "macho" Christian, NO.

Romans 15:1-3.

"1We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.

2Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.

3For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me."

One may contrast that with the explanation of what to do when our brethren are

offended back in pfal. vpw himself spoke to the effect of DISREGARDING those offended.

After all, he said, if one person didn't like my tie, another might not like my vest,

and at that rate, "pretty soon we'd get down to bare facts."

It sounds soooo CLEVER, but if I had to choose between SOUNDING CLEVER

and SPEAKING GOD'S WORD, I shall continue to be clumsy and awkward,

and speak the words of God.

While I don't disagree that a distinction of meaning between "confess" and profess" can be made with English, the same Greek

word seems to present us an interesting consideration, in that homologeo ( Strongs # 3670; cf.3671) has been

translated quite often throughout the NT (the KJV) as either "confess" or "profess".

Danny

That would have been an issue if the word "homologeo" appeared in that passage.

I was speaking of the difference between the CONCEPTS.

Please clarify how Melchisidec figures into "the doctrine of the Trinity."

I really don't THINK you're claiming the King of Salem was Jesus himself,

or any part of God in any traditional Trinity sense.

Please correct my understanding if you ARE claiming that.

A cursory glance can make it look like that's exactly what you're suggesting.

It's been about a week. Can we either get MORE quotes or move this along?

(snip)

I don't read them as truth but alot of times I'm studying in KJV Bible (because that's the best version) and it doesn't make sense to me, so to read the literals I have at the moment and -- I work them.

(snip)

The man that taught and teaches me the Word studied under VPW as did his wife and they tell me the same.

(snip)

You're free to study-or not study-anything you want.

You're free to build a 40-foot bronze statue to someone and bow to it when the music plays

if you want.

However,

I feel the need to make corrections when FACTUAL errors are given.

(That happens a lot on the internet.)

You said the King James Version is "THE BEST VERSION."

Now, if your standard for best relies solely on "vpw used it so it's the best", then, yes, under that definition,

it is the best.

The KJV has advantages and disadvantages.

The intent King James had in authorizing a version was in making one version that was

academically superior to the other versions present.

He succeeded- in 1611, it was "cutting edge."

The advantages of the KJV at this time are:

-it is easy to find

-it offers the italics for words the translator added

-its language has that "old-time" feel

-it offers word-for-word translation rather than concept-for-concept paraphrases.

The disadvantages of the KJV at this time are:

-its language is stilted and outmoded

-despite some updates, it is far behind textual research of the past 50-100 years

Now, the NIV lacks the italics, but is a fair word-for-word, & has incorporated many improvements.

The NRSV has much the same advantages.

However, if you want a Bible that offers all the strengths of the KJV with fewer weaknesses,

and none added to the KJV, you want a New American Standard Bible.

The NASB uses a word-for-word translation, is direct, uses modern language much clearer

than the KJV, incorporates modern improvements based on texts discovered in the past

several hundred years, AND USES THE ITALICS.

Anyone who likes to use the KJV because of its word-for-word approach or its italics

(or both) should switch to a NASB the next chance they get.

They're not on every streetcorner, but any bookstore or Christian bookstore either can

order it or has it in stock.

Many times-and we've discussed many of them here- the archaic, awkward phrasing of

things in the KJV were taken BY VPW and whole doctrines were formed around them-

when a version like the NASB doesn't make the mistake in the first place.

Let me know if you need examples of this; we've discussed one in the past week alone.

======

Relying on vpw- or people who rely on vpw- produces the same problem as relying on

ANY one teacher for your education- you take on their WEAKNESSES as well as their

strengths (and vpw's education lacked many things.)

That's why men learning a craft down the centuries entered a stage called "journeyman".

A Journeyman travelled (thus the name), practiced what he learned, and also learned

from other master-craftsmen besides who he started with. That way, he can correct errors

he began with, and add additional skills to his repertoire.

Nowadays, it is VERY easy to learn from many different Christians from many different

groups. You don't even need to leave your desk-if you have the internet.

However,

if you're determined to ONLY learn the vpw style, and ONLY learn from vpw-endorsers,

that is entirely your privilege. Me, I didn't limit myself to that even before the internet,

and when I thought vpw was the best.

Two comments:

I always thought the cliche "in depth spiritual perception" was a bit redundant. I mean ... if it's spiritual, then isn't it by sheer logic also in depth? How about "shallow spiritual perception"? Like ... how could it be spiritual if it was shallow? Oh well.

Also, in reading this thread, I had to remember a road trip I took with a long-time Corps lady. You know - one of those females who forged right up the TWI ladder, secretly in search of a man, but never finding one who could match her "in depth spiritual perception"? Anyhow, we were driving through the mountains of Utah, on our way to Vegas, and she was confronting me constantly about my driving skills in such a dangerous place. I asked her what she meant by "dangerous", since I live in a mountainous region myself, and considered this kind of area much safer than the big cities. She answered by telling me to just look around at the rugged terrain and the wilderness, and use my discernment abilities, because surely I would realize that the devil was responsible for such a CHAOTIC design to this part of the earth. Gee, and I thought it was ... beautiful. Of course Las Vegas was holy ground, because believers lived there. Yikes!

Whatever.

"Everything is so out of order here- God would have never created such an irregular and desolate

landscape."

I had saved that on the Greasespot Gems thread. :)

My freshman year of college some friends of mine were taking ju-jit-su (sp?) lessons. I asked my dad if I could join them. He said "you need to watch out for devil spirits and it is probably not a good idea". What? "Devil spirits".

My mom called back a week or two later and said, "Oh, you mean a type of wrestling?"

As always,

vpw or lcm didn't understand something = debbil spurts.

One could argue about questionable meditational techniques used with certain soft styles,

but Jiu-Jitsu, among others, is a hard-style, and used for self-defense.

I'm almost surprised he didn't connect it to Jews just because the first word is pronounced

"Jiew".

Hey, wasnt it an In-Depth Spiritual Perception and Awareness..as to acquire..

Oh boy,Im more aware..

Corps Principle 1 was "Acquire an in-depth spiritual perception and awareness."

Funny how there was disagreement on this one.

vpw himself said that it originally read

"Acquire an in-depth spiritua perception and awareness OF THE WORD."

He claimed he didn't like the current phrasing because he didn't think this applied

to other things.

Naturally, lcm applied it to EVERYTHING, except maybe The Word....

In the GSC Documents section, I read where parents said their kids learned to curse

FROM LCM.

So much for setting a good example for the church...

Great. I'll meet you there when you have time. This isn't a race or anything.

My mislabeled post started me thinking about logical as well as Biblical objections to a virgin birth, although, as I have said before, I'm not sure that when it says in Matthew 1:24 & 25--that Joseph 'took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son'; that 'knew' necessarily means sexual activity resulting in pregnancy, since in the record of Sodom and Gomorrah, the word 'know' is used in conjunction with homosexual activity which could not possibly result in pregnancy.

I'm still waiting for an actual, authoritative source to come out and say this was a legitimate usage

of the term, from a source unconnected with a twi history and not trying to defend vpw's teachings

specifically nor generally.

Does anyone have one? Something with sources?

On the other hand, I wonder about the discomfort having an intact hymen might cause a woman in labor (since I brought it up), and how much pain would be caused by having an hymen ruptured by something as big in circumference as a baby's head, not to mention that the baby would be travelling in the opposite direction (moving from the inside out instead of from the outside in), as a penis would be. It also occurred to me that it would reassure Joseph's mind, if he were allowed to have sexual relations with Mary prior to Christ's birth and to determine that she really was still a virgin (although pregnant) just as the angel had said. This falls into the category of just what I think and can't be backed up by any Biblical reference.

Worth thinking about, but with no details on such provided, it's all speculation, whether good, bad,

logical or miraculous.

We don't know if God "removed this obstacle."

Also, I've read that some young women who are active in sports have this break whether or not they

are sexually-active. It was not a medical source I read this from, so I don't know how much

credence to give it.

A very early belief about this subject is contained in the Protoevangelium of James. Discussed briefly in post #19, back on page 1. You might find that of interest.

*reads about 1/3 the Protoevangelium of James*

*skims the Wikipedia article*

Forgive me if I don't put any stock in this.

It neither looks "right" to me, nor does it seem to date back to the lifetime of James at all.

I think it was written by the intent and hand of a well-meaning man who thought it was a good idea.

I was tempted to guess "Q2" as a joke.

There was a Star Trek:TNG Collectible Card Game (ST:TNG CCG).

It worked a little like Magic:the Gathering, and was made back when EVERYONE was making

a CCG. (I have some cards from the Monty Python Holy Grail CCG.)

CCGs were/are of 2 kinds: battle or quest.

M:tG is a battle game- 2 players have their cards fight it out.

ST:TNG CCG is a quest game- 2 players attempt to complete missions before the other player does.

Some cards can interfere with the playing of other cards- those in the ST:TNG CCG that can

be played to do that anytime are called "Interrupts" (they can interrupt the action.)

One "interrupt" is Q-2. It can be played anytime, and it cancels the actions of the cards

"Q" "Amanda Roberts" and "Kevin Uxbridge." The picture on the card was of the other Q Continuum

member who showed up when Q lost his Q powers.

So, my saying that would have been a joke that would have been the correct answer

by chance.