Oakspear

My second example, about the dogs analogy, is also an illustration of how these examples and analogies sometimes took on a life of their own. During the waning days of my "innieness", another GSer and I (who was also an "innie" at the time) were comparing notes about various errors and inconsistancies that we had found in WayAP and PFAL. One of these was "private interpretation". We believed that Wierwille had it wrong, and referred to Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible, as well as verses that used epilu? in questioning our respective "leadership" about it. Both of us got an explanation of how hunting dogs act, how they are trained, more than anyone could possibly want to know about dogs loosed on the game, but NO reference to a single bible verse, NO reference to a lexicon that would contain the actual meaning of the word...nothing, except a detailed explanation of the explanation.

Oh I remember that ROA. The first time that we decided to bring all the kids (SIX - in previous years one of us would stay home with the younger ones) and it rains for the first two days. It's hard for a tent to remain watertight when a freakin' RIVER is flowing through the campsite And on top of that, it the freakin' CLASS on Living Sanctified -->

Anyone who has spent any time around me knows I have a very sensitive b.s. detector. Any time one of my children was accused of anything, whether by a teacher, twig leader, another child, anybody, I would sit them down and ask them a lot of questions. I could spot an inconsistancy in a story a mile away. I could smell a lie in the next county. If they convinced me that they were wrongly accused, or their accuser had misunderstood the situation then I would back them up with every fiber of my being. If I found out that they were in the wrong, they took their lumps (not literally ), and God help them if they lied to me. Parents who unquestioningly believe everything that their "little angels" tell them are fools. Parents who never back up their children are cruel.

Are you the Bob Burke from Long Island?

Let me add that just because you think that bad things didn't happen to you in TWI, doesn't mean that bad things didn't happen to you in TWI. I find that I, and others who post here as well, rationalized away some of the crap that happened. Maybe the bad didn't seem so bad in comparison to what we thought we were learning, or was worth enduring because we were "moving the Word". To a certain extent we were conditioned to accept the abnormal as normal.

From Wierwille, courtesy of Galen: From Bullinger, copied from appendix 182 of the Companion Bible

Where did I say anything positive about this foo-foo water? To my knowledge I've never consumed any. --> And you couldn't tell that the "TM" after FEDGOV was a joke? --> and THIS section, geez, I didn't know you were into conspiracy theory ]"FED", when referring to Greenspan, is an abbreviation of "Federal Reserve", but you knew that, right? :P--> Then it's got to be evil, eh? :o--> Yup, yup, yuip. Where do the Illuminati figure into this?

Wierwille wanted us to "check it out" for ourselves, sure, but armed with off-beat definitions and assumptions. What happened to those with dissenting "research"? Shown the door.

I decry the attempted destruction of Israel by the descendents of these survivors! Decry it I say! ;)-->

Sir! Step away from the orange book! Slowly now, keep your hands where I can see them

It was the plaid suits and the ruffled shirts, that's why :D-->

There was NO weirdness in the 70's?Oh wait, you didn't say that, just that ALL OF THE WEIRDNESS hadn't arrived yet :D-->

They both wrote that Matthew was the regal line, dmiller, they differed in that Bullinger said it was Joseph's geneology, Wierwille said it was Mary's

I have no idea, but both Bullinger and Wierwille believed it. If you have a Companion Bible it's in appendix 182, Wierwille covers it in The Word's Way chapter, "The Lord's Brethren". Perhaps it was because only one person could be king at a time. If Jesus had an older brother who was of the same royal lineage, apparently both Bullinger and Wierwille assumed that Jesus would not have "legal" rights to the kingship, but that the older brother would inherit first. I'm not attempting to argue for or against the "older brother inherits first" position, merely pointing out that both Bullinger and Wierwille cited it as a reason why "the Lord's brethren" could not be Joseph's sons by an earlier marrige, but had to be his younger, full, brothers. Huh? Actually we are talking inheritance. Levites? Yes. And I believe that in some instances Wierwille's take, or opinion, makes more sense then does Bullinger's. Other times the reverse. It appears that you misunderstand my point Galen.I am not saying "that VPW failed in his understanding of Bullinger because he did not copy ‘all’ of Bullinger"; I am saying that, at least in the "Lord's Brethren" example, he disagreed with Bullinger's premise (that Joseph, not Mary, was of the royal bloodline), but agreed with his conclusion (that older sons of Joseph by a previous marriage would invalidate Jesus' claim to the Davidic kingship). The conclusion makes no sense unless you agree with the premise. Wierwille taught that it was through Mary that Jesus became heir to David's throne. If so, any sons of Joseph by anyone other than Mary would have been irrelevant to inheritance of the kingship. My point is that he merely copied Bullinger's conclusion in appendix 182, somehow missing that the conclusion did not follow his own premise. That to me indicates that he did not understand Bullinger

I was once asked to call a woman in town who was running an offshoot fellowship with her husband. She and I had known each other years earlier. I was told to find out details about their fellowship by pretending to be interested in having my kids take PFAL.

When I was booted moving was not really an option since my kids live here with my ex-wife. I immediately stayed to move the word by avoiding twigs and PFAL classes :D-->

Actually Belle, you spelled Twyril correctly :D-->

Pineapple & canadian bacon on a pizza probably won't hurt you either, but you won't get me to eat it :D-->

yeah dmiller, it did revolve around the word for husband in Matthew. Wierwille claimed that "husband" should have been translated "father". For what it's worth I thought Wierwille's explanation of the geneolgies made more sense. The problem was that he adopted Bulliger's explanation of why the "brethren" couldn't be Jesus' older step-brothers, without adopting Bullinger's premise that Matthew was Joseph's geneology.

It's my opinion that, although Wierwille referred to Bullinger, and taught some of the same things, he didn't really understand him. Here are two examples why I am of that opinion: 1. The Lord's Brethren Wierwille taught that Mary's geneolgy was in Matthew and that Jesus' claim to the throne of David was through Mary. Joseph's geneology was listed in Luke. Bullinger taught that Joseph's geneology was in Matthew, and that Jesus' claim to the throne was through Joseph, not Mary. Who's right? I don't know, although both do some gymnastics to make it "fit". In Bullinger's appendix 182 entitled "The Lord's Brethren" he rebuts the claim of some that the brethren mentioned in the gospels are Joseph's sons by a previous marriage. He does this by claiming that older sons from a previous marriage would have invalidated Jesus' claim to the throne of David, citing his own appendix 99, which analyzes the two geneologies. Wierwille, in the chapter of The Word's Way, also entitled "The Lord's Brethren", makes the same argument, that "older sons of Joseph by a previous marriage would invalidate Jesus' claim to the throne of David", even though Wierwille did not teach that the royal boodline was through Joseph, but through Mary. If the royal bloodline was through Mary, as Wierwille taught, Joseph could have had a dozen sons by a previous wife with no effect on Jesus' claim to David's throne. It seems evident that if Wierwille had understood Bullinger, rather than merely parroting him, or plagiarizing him, or had originated the thought himself, he would have seen the contradiction. Even more so, God should have seen it if it was god-breathed :P--> 2. Private Interpretation Wierwille shows how "private" is translated from the word idios, "one's own". He the attempts to define "interpretation", translated from epilusis. Since this is the only use of epilusis, he attempts to define the related verb epilu?. He says that the word means to let loose, like wild dogs upon the game. He emphasizes the image of the loose dogs running wild, and teaches that our minds cannot be like that, portraying interpretation as a bad thing. Checking Bullinger in How to Enjoy the Bible, he gives more detail, also using the dogs example. But Bullinger, notes that the example comes from a profane source, and gives several biblical uses of the word, all which mean "to open up", "to unveil", "to reveal", etc. In fact, in the dogs example, the emphasis is on the act of releasing the dogs, not on how the dogs act, wild or not. Again, it seems apparent that Wierwille got his example from Bullinger, but muffed the definition because he really didn't get what Bullinger was saying If Wierwille understood what Bullinger was saying, he could have more accurately portrayed what he was teaching, there would be no inconsistancy.If Wierwille had thought it up on his own, the same would be true. Therefore, Wierwille lifted parts of Bullinger without attribution, and the claims of having developed the same teachings independently is a lie

Ah, I get it, genocide is good if God says it's okay. Hamas and Al Qaeda use similar arguments today.

No, he mentioned several people that he had "learned" from. When is J.E. Stiles ever mentioned, other than as the man who led him into tongues in Tulsa right after the "snowstorm"? If he had honestly and upfrontly had citations to follow up on, maybe we would have done it then, but we're doing it now, so what? The people who did do it back then LEFT back then. Sloppy? More like naive and gullible. :D-->

Oh, hell yeah, Uncle H, hell yeah. Some of these guys put on such a good show that they were receiving "heavy revy" from God, and if you weren't getting it, you could easily feel like you were missing it. Or the idiots who would constantly be walking around saying how "Father told me this" and "Father told me that". Asking "Father" what way to turn at an intersection, what to have for dinner...aaaaauuuuugggggghhhhhhhhhhhh

Mike: Sorry, I just don't have the attention span for those long posts like I used to, must have been all those times sitting through three-hour PFAL classes. :D--> By the way Mike, I have looked at things from your perspective, and I often put myself in the shoes of those I disagree with to attempt to understand their point of view. I do understand that all of your opinions spring from the premise that Wierwille's writings were god-breathed. Good strategy, by the way, introducing the Israelites taking of the "promised land" to confuse the issue of plagiarism. While I'm not a bible-believer, I do not see them as the same. I Peter 2:13-15> Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme or unto governers, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, taht with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men Do you want to argue that those verses are not applicible? I can see where it may be necessary to disobey the law when it conflicts with what God has to say, but I see no reason why God wpould have Wierwille plagiarize, when there were many legal ways to get the message across. While I do view the records in the Torah and Joshua-Judges as the attempt by the Israelites to justify their invasion of a land that was occupied by other tribes, and the subsequent genocide of some peoples, conquering other nations by force was the way of the world, especially in those days. The biblical record, while I don't personally believe that it's true, is at least plausible in it's attribution to God the command to conquer. Even assuming that Wierwille received revelation, it is not plausible to me that he would choose such roundabout mmethods to get his point across. Another point: I don't look for you to prove anything. I know you won't. Just continuing to wait for a reason why you believe as you do that makes sense to me.