WordWolf

I'm with Dot Matrix.

HE...STOLE....MAGGIE MUGGINS? AND THE BOLOCCO

BROTHERS, HENRY AND HERMAN?????

(Johnny Jumpup is a flower, but, apparently,

its use as a name was the same source also.)

That's just obscene.

Anyone who reads thru EW Bullinger's

"How to Enjoy the Bible"

(and can stay awake thru it) will see that

whole sessions were ripped off of it.

(If anyone knows of an edition of that book that

doesn't have tiny print, I'd like to hear it.)

Similarly, EW's Companion Bible reiterates a

lot of his points.

I've also heard that J.E. Stiles' book(& class?)

have points that were ripped off in

"Recieving the Holy Spirit Today" (the white

book), which vpw supposedly developed entirely

on his own, not long after studying under

Stiles.

Some of the collaterals were ripped off

E.W. Kenyon's books.

It seems that, except for Clarence Larkin,

it was a standing policy of his to rip off

work from Christians who used initials and pass

it off as his own.

Jerry, I agree.

I think he didn't really think through the

whole "sonship rights" thing before making it

an official doctrine, either.

Furthermore, nobody seemed to do so in twi

since then. I've heard discussions among

outies, but not innies.

I have heard, while in, someone (lcm) making

a big deal about it being a good thing something

was a sonship RIGHT and not a sonship

OBLIGATION. I ignored him because he wasn't

making sense.

Last time I looked this up, I sat with the

interlinear & lexicon for a bit, & concluded I

thought the best translation would be

"and two other with him on this side and on

THIS side". I'll look it over again later and

see if I end up with the same conclusion-it's

been over 10 years. :)-->

-------------------------

Jerry, I had to add that comment because of all

the good lines I'd already missed in the

thread. Plus, with someone asserting that the

orange book was "incorrectly translated"

(from ENGLISH to ENGLISH? HOW?), I was reminded

of General Chang's comment.

------------------------

BTW, if you really want it, Hamlet can now be

purchased "in the original Klingon". No, I'm

not posting a link-I don't want to see it again

myself. :)-->

Besides, if Hamlet was a Klingon, it would have

been over in Act 1. Hamlet hears from his

father, then in the next scene, Hamlet kills

Claudius. The end. :)-->

I finally got up to the actual list.

Nice list.

I have the following comments on the list.

(Not corrections, more along the lines of

"ruminations".)

-I wish you had spent a line or 2 naming the

'droit de seigneur' (or however it's spelled),

since the concept frames his state of mind,

as spelled out in other threads. It's

especially when you consider people's statements

that the minister is equivalently "the king"

nowadays. A full discussion of this, of course,

would get hot & be a debate. However, I think a

few words on the concept itself need not be.

- For me, the easiest way to see the difference

between allos and heteros is in the first 10

verses of Galatians.

Paul marvelled that they had so soon moved to

"another"(heteros-a different) gospel,

"which is not another"(allo-another of the same).

If I remember correctly, vpw used both this and

the "made up" explanation (one means "other of

only two") in his books, but never tried to

explain why there are 2 meanings, or when to

use which meaning. That was just something I was

used to ignoring.

----------------------------------

BTW, Rafael, I distinctly do NOT remember you

EVER teaching anything from 'the 13th Tribe',

or referring to its contents in any way, at any

time in my presence. In fact, the only time I

ever heard you mention anything like that was

once when I specifically ASKED you about the

book (which I haven't read). Your response

indicated that you weren't directly saying it

was trash, however, it was obvious you were

not endorsing it, and were not confident of its

contents. You even shrugged at one point when I

asked you if its premise was correct.

Your response was in the same style as my

responses to any questions about the CF & S

class. (Slightly evasive, & obviously meant to

close discussion on the subject as fast as

possible.)

If you ever taught it when I wasn't looking,

or in the middle-to-late 90's, then I wouldn't

know, of course. (I suspect you only got MORE

skeptical by that time, not less.)

That reminds me....

once we've had a break,

does anyone want to pull out their CF & S

syllabus and add a few pages to this thread?

Imagine all the fun we could have! :)-->

But of course, I forgot.......

...you haven't REALLY read the collateral books

until you've read them in the original Klingon.

:)-->

This is WordWolf signing off and heading for

the tub. Alert Ted Koppel.

Man!

It took me most of the week to finally catch

up to the end of the thread!

-I don't remember vpw's comment about angels not

singing as appearing in any of the books.

(Doesn't mean it's NOT there-I just didn't note

it.) He DID say it a number of times. Somewhere

I have a tape where he mentioned it, during the

songs. He said, of why he has people sing

"..angels do NOT sing. SAINTS sing. That's why

I have you people sing-because none of you are

angels. *pause for obligatory audience laugh*

Even you ladies.*pause form obligatory

audience laugh*

Unless someone's willing to pay me a lot of

money, I'm not going to sit thru all the tapes

to find it.

----

Rafael, I haven't looked at the list yet. If I

made the list, please use my screen-name.

-----

You did include the "droit de signeur", right?

("every woman in the kingdom belonged to the

king") If memory serves, one of the ladies

originally identified it by name, on its own

thread. (I think she shud b asked about a

mention, if you do include it.)

------

Thanks for the reminder you left me a few pages

back. I'll doublecheck it, & post a reply as

soon as I can (hopefully, 24 hours or less.)

------

Please warn us when you're going to post

something that funny. My laugh produced a

doppler echo back to me. :)-->

Maybe you can post a picture of that river in

Egypt. :)-->

I got that one last year for 2002.

A few items were on that one that weren't

here. Let's see....

-You check ingredients labels to see if your

soup contains echinacea.

-You page your son to come down to dinner.

He e-mails back "what did you make?"

-Clearing out the dining room involves throwing

all the wrappers out of the backseat.

-You receive a list like this and laugh.

-Even worse, you're going to forward it to your

friends.

Barrax, I remember you.

I still haven't worked that business about the

"outer darkness" yet, but I have it pencilled

in for further study. If you've worked it in

detail, I'd love a copy.

Well, that's a whole other story entirely.

If someone's refusing to answer clear questions

they know the answers to because they can't be

bothered, then they're just asking for a

pimp-slap. I can't communicate with someone

like that.

If people who sit thru the Rocky Horror Picture

Show week after week can recite all the words,

and some people can recite all of "Alice's

Restaurant" from memory, then after the first

7 times sitting thru piffle, I'm bound to

remember something.

Besides, that thing about saying "I don't know"

rather than guessing was a major point to me.

(I still use it.)

Actually, I'm surprised I don't remember for

sure who spoke after Johnny jumped up. Also,

I forget which one said the seed meant what.

I think Maggie was the 3rd, & she thought the

good seed was the good works of man. I think

one said it was the church, one said it was

the Word. (I think.)

I know it wasn't Snowball Peter or Herman

B, because they were only mentioned once each.

(Henry B was a different story.)

Actually, it was only when I tried reciting the

whole section from memory that I remembered just

how pompous the followup to "it's no sin to

be stupid" was. I would have stopped at his

famous "that's right", & leave out the 'stupid'

comment.

Of course, some people still think of it as the

greatness of God's Word in pfal.

Not me, but some people.

That's right.

Bless your little heart.

Yes, Oldies,

it was right in one of the early sessions.

We were going over the parable of the sower.

"What's the good seed?"

And Maggie Muggins, Johnny Jumpup, and a 3rd

person (Henry B? I forget) gave their opinions,

having only heard that the sower sowed good

seed.

"Then I jump up & down & pull my hair out and

say 'no, no, a thousand times no!' "

(vpw never lacked for drama).

...He says "if you don't know, say you don't

know! It's not wrong to say you don't know,

it's wrong to indicate that you DO know when

you do not know-when you guess.

That's right.

It's no sin to be stupid.

It's a sin to stay stupid when the greatness

of God's Word is available in Power for

Abundant Living."

------------------------------------------

Really full of himself, wasn't he?

Even the Advanced class notes on PFAL pretty

much repeat vpw's paraphrase from Bullinger.

You remember something else being emphasized,

Zix? I'm blanking-please pass it along.

(Somebody might want to see what the Home

Studies say about this. I'm pretty sure that

either they, the Advanced class exam, or, more

likely, both, asked a question about this very

subject.)

I'm leaning towards what's been said about

slandering Jesus by "tarring" him with the

label "Samaritan". It would make a lot of

sense-notably in that same chapter, by those

"We're Children of ABRAHAM!" types.

Once again, Mike has successfully written

another lengthy post, with complete disregard

for addressing any errors of PFAL, while

maintaining he doesn't have time to address

even one in a small post.

I suspect he didn't actually READ Rafael's post

about Jesus at age 12. If he did, it sure

didn't sink in.

------------------------------

"I said to her 'baby, ain't you got no shame?'

She just looked at me

Uncomprehendingly

Like cows at a passing train."

Here's a little piece of obscure Tolkien trivia

you may find interesting. (Or not.)

The original version of "the Hobbit" (Bilbo's

journey, during which he gets the ring) has that

scene done differently. In the original,

Bilbo and Gollum DO have the riddle game.

However, Bilbo wins fair & square, and Gollum

give him the ring as a present. Supposedly,

Bilbo's talk of the ring as a "present" was one

of the things that got Gandalf suspicious.

(Gollum, somewhere in the trilogy, refers to

the ring as his "birthday present"- why will

become clear when the 3rd movie is released.)

Supposedly, the current version of the book is

what actually happened, the original is what

Bilbo SAID happened.

The current one has Bilbo stumble and slip the

ring in his pocket unconsciously when he puts

out his hands to get up. During the riddle

game, Bilbo, trying to think of another riddle,

puts his hands in his pockets. "What have I got

in my pockets?" he mumbles absent-mindedly.

Gollum claims that, since it's not a proper

riddle, he should get 3 guesses. He misses, &

goes away to get something. :)--> (He's had

enough of this-he's going to get the ring, turn

invisible, and kill Bilbo.) When he comes up

blank, he realizes-too late-what "the Bagginnss"

had in his pocket! He comes running back-and

past Bilbo, whose finger had slipped into the

ring.

For those of you who wondered how Gollum knew

the names "Baggins" and "Shire", Bilbo

introduced himself properly when he met Gollum.

I'll have to check the opening of "T2T" for that

glow, Zix. Thanks for pointing it out.

Anybody know how come the scene in Bree, in

FotR was so different in the common room?

I thought JRR's original version of what Merry

& Pippin were saying, & Frodo vanishing, was a

LOT more plausible than the movie version.

They're running for their lives, & all day,

Frodo doesn't think to mention he's travelling

under an alias? Barleyman Butterbur, the

innkeeper,doesn't have a note from Gandalf here.

It would have helped, I thought.

Then again, I thought that the idea of Strider

carrying around the pieces of Narsil (in the

book) was a stupid concept from the beginning.

Guy travels light, & his main weapon is broken?

Plus, he brings it on the road, where it can be

lost?

Anybody know if there's any plan to get special

knives for Merry & Pippin, to replace the ones

that they were supposed to get in the missing

barrow-wight scene? (Sam, too, if I remember

correctly.) It DID become an issue in the 3rd

book, & I hope that scene stays intact.

Frodo's barrow-knife, as you recall, was

broken when the King of the Nazgul and Frodo

faced off at the ford at the edge of Rivendell.

Rafael,

Luke 14:33.

Seems to me the CONNOTATION of "apostasia" (or

the cognate thereof) is positive here-although

the KJV has picked as negative a word to

translate its DENOTATION into as possible.

(Unless someone's ready to argue that being

Christ's disciple is of equal or lesser value

than all his earthy possessions.)

Rafael, I still say that events falling under

both a positive AND a negative connotation

occur virtually simultaneously, and both right

in the context of that verse. So, I still say

that BOTH translations are correct in this

instance, depending on which event you

reference.

"So...

....does anyone know how to MADISON?"

The Time Warp also occasionally shows up at

dance events. Ever see 75 people on a dance

floor all spiral to the floor as a song drains

away? :)-->

Those who love Yellow Submarine should make

sure they see the blue edition. It has a few

added lines, an entire missing scene (when the

"goldfish bowl" is opened & we meet Sgt Pepper's

Lonely Hearts Club Band), and an entire musical

sequence ("Hey Bulldog" aka "You Can Talk To Me")

which I liked better than most of the other

numbers. :)-->

Man, Max Headroom was ahead of its time there on

net-net-network 23. :)-->

If you all will excuse me, I'm getting in line

now for tickets to "Underworld", due out later

this year "sometime". I don't care HOW much

it's going to suck-I'm gonna see it.

About 'apostasia',

I think the most literal translation would be

"a moving away from". (Those of you who know

your Greek, feel free to chime in & embarrass

the hell out of me.)

The word "apostasia" becoming "apostasy" is,

to me, an example of the specialization of

language. Over 2,000 years, some definitions

drift. Another example is "katabole", which,

nowadays, has given a few people the word

"katabolism". That word has nothing to do with

the meaning of 'katabole' at the time the Bible

was written. (It MAY, however, have inspired

someone to go into left field on the subject.)

Anyway, 'a moving away from', as I see it.

Since, at the time that verse is speaking of,

both a positive and negative moving away from

is current (the Rapture/Gathering Together/

Blessed Hope and the degeneration of society as

the man of sins is revealed), I say they're

BOTH right, since BOTH happen at the time.

*waits for Greek scholars to ram him*

Rafael,

Vertical Limit just reminded me of the famous

"'in Christ' is a temporary position of the

moment" (I forgot which was supposed to be

'standing' & which was 'state' also.)

Remember that other fellow who pointed out the

'dead in Christ' rise first?

So, those would be the corpses lying in

harmony with Jesus, I take it?

Please share, Vertical Limit, as you have opportunity! :)-->

Please check me on this.

I'm certain you remember this from the class-was it in the books?

He said about Matthew 6:1-2, that those who did their alms before men had no reward.

As we so often pointed out (Rafael & I), the

verses say RIGHT THERE they HAD their reward!

It says their reward was to be seen of men!

That's what they wanted, & that's what they got.

Also, about Matthew 6:33, he points out-

correctly-that if you seek first the kingdom of

God and His righteousness, all those things

would be added unto you. Unable to let the

verses go without embellishing, he adds,

however,

that if you DON'T seek first the kingdom of God,

all these things will be SUBTRACTED from you!

WHO SAYS?

That's a gross overstatement! I would say it

the way I always thought it-even back then.

If you DON'T seek first the kingdom of God,

then you're on your own. Happy hunting!

I was reading Matthew today. Funny what you find

when you're not looking for it. :)-->

Rafael, give this thread a little time. I'm

sure some good stuff isn't here yet. :)-->

Eventually, you may want to rank them, & do a

countdown, from least significant to most, or

separate them into a list of short explanations

and long explanations. :)-->

(Most of my stuff is short explanations.:)--> )

I know this is about T2T, but there's something

bugging me about both movies, & it's very petty.

Those who read 'the Hobbit' know that Bilbo

Baggins got "Sting", an elven knife, when Gandalf got "Glamdring" (aka "Beater") and the

dwarf Thorin Oakenshield got Orcrist (aka "Biter"). All 3 weapons were magical, and glowed when orcs were present, the brighter the glow, the closer they were.

At the door to Moria in FotR, I pointed out to

someone Gandalf's sword, which he shifts when he sits on the rock to think. A few scenes later, Frodo sees "Sting" glow. I said

"Wait a minute! Why isn't GLAMDRING glowing?"

I don't remember it glowing at the beginning of

T2T either. (One fan in the theater behind me

said, of the beginning, "Glamdring did all the

work!") C'mon, Jackson, would it really have

been too much to ask to make it glow whenever

Sting glowed?

And, yes, a bright light from Gandalf as the

Rohirrim charged at Helm's Deep would have gone

a long way into making the rout more

believeable. :)-->

Mike,

I'd like to pass along something for your

consideration.

This isn't for debate, just some free advice

you may appreciate.

(Although you probably won't, but I'll try.)

There are Christians out there doing God's will

& seeing power from on high, who have never

heard of vpw.

If you want to glorify God as a Christian, and

do your utmost for His Highest, you CAN do it

without vpw or twi or pfal or any other letters.

It won't end your world, Mike.

Many Christians live like that.

Please think that over for a minute.

It won't end your world to be a Christian

without vpw or twi or pfal.

Mike,

I've seen people been attacked online,

here & elsewhere.

I've been attacked online,

here & elsewhere.

You haven't been attacked.

The other posters believe you've provided

extensive evidence that you are trying to

subvert the body of Christ.

Considering that, they've been very nice to

you.

Unless you count disagreeing as 'persecution'.

Please stop playing 'poor persecuted one.'

Supposedly, your time is limited. However,

you've got plenty of time to complain. Whatever.

BTW, I was wondering...

for the purposes of this thread, are we

counting things like vpw's mistaken use of

the word 'anabolepto' in the class & the

correct usage of "eidon" in the later editions,

when talking about Enoch not 'seeing' death?

What about Paul imprisoned in Jerusalem,

where the closest anyone ever comes to getting

born again was one man-"I don't remember if it

was Felix or Festus"-who said "almost you

persuade me to be a Christian." Well, doc, the

reason you can't remember if it was Felix or

Festus is because it was Agrippa. :)-->

Of course, the entire statement that "the

closest anyone came to getting born again"

during the time Paul spent in jail completely

ignores Onesimus (Pilemon 1:1-10), and whoever

else is not named like Onesimus is. I find it

hardly credible to think that Onesimus was the

only one. However, the fact that one can be

named specifically discredits this statement

directly taken from pfal.

Hey, this is fun!

Rafael, you going to make one concise list of

these when we're done?

It would look great as a hanging from the

bookshelf I keep my old collaterals on. :)-->

During PFAL itself,

vpw says that "Peter denied Jesus 3 TIMES 3

times"-a total of 9.

In Jesus Christ Our Passover, vpw wrote that

Peter denied Jesus 6 times.

(This bugged me.)

I'm unsure if the book has it as 6 or 9.

---------------------

Here's one Rafael used to wince at in PFAL...

vpw said that "atheists" contradicted themselves

because it means they don't believe...but in

doing so, they believe that they don't believe."

As anyone who sat thru SESSION ONE OF THE SAME

CLASS should have been able to tell,

"atheist" does not refer to "believing".

That class (& this thread) talked about 2 words:

"apisistia" & "apeithia". With the prefix "a",

or "not", these words could loosely translate

into 'no belief' and 'no pathos'.

As in "is it apistia, or apeithia'? I don't

know & I don't care."

Atheist can be loosely translated "no god."

"Theos" means "god". All students should have

been able to tell that, since they learned that

"theoponeustos" meant "God-breathed".

------------------------

Here's my personal, all-time favourite.

We've NEVER discussed it, AFAIK.

Get your pencils ready.

Ready?

Here we go.

Every person who sat thru pfal should be able

to remember vpw talking about how different

people told vpw how God told them to tell him

to go to different places, telling him to do

stuff. Eventually, he figured out the problem.

The next time someone told him something like

that, vpw told him that God had told them

nothing of the kind-that God didn't tell them

to tell him to go-God told THEM to go. God

tells you what YOU need to do, and if you are

supposed to tell someone about it, God will

tell you that, also.

------

In fact, this lesson is a very hard lesson

Joseph learned in Genesis 37:5-19.

God gives Joseph 2 dreams, but does NOT tell

Joseph to tell anyone. He tells his brothers,

and they hate him enough to kill him or sell

him into slavery, either one.

It's a very, very important lesson to learn.

-------------

Supposedly, however, God gave vpw revelation

that he was "some great one".

Why, then, did vpw go around telling EVERYONE

that, when the rule was that if God wants you

to tell someone, He'll tell you to tell them?

In all the accounts of that happening, never

was it mentioned that God said to pass it

around. In fact, if He did, that's especially

peculiar, since it would not have been

profitable all thru the years.

:)-->