VPW and the Snowstorm - What do you believe?

[Ham]

Nor I the works of Aleister Crowley..

[Oakspear]

The sins of the teacher do not negate the truths in the teaching.

The post that you quoted does not say that they do.

I for one consider Wierwille's character a good reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt; my opinion that his teachings are faulty is based on the teachings themselves. Tzaia's post seems to be saying something similar.

Be careful not to light any matches around that strawman.

[Mark Clarke]

The sins of the teacher do not negate the truths in the teaching.

No, the teachings themselves negate their so-called "truths."

Since stepping further away and reading them even more critically, I can't recommend anything beyond perhaps JCOP, and even then I am hesitant because of his attempt to reconcile the two passion accounts when they are clearly different narratives and disagree about whether Jesus was crucified on the day of the Passover preparation or before. The narratives in the Bible simply do not agree and I (now) disagree with the idea they must agree.

I agree about JCOP. The whole logic of it built on the day JC died being a Wednesday, which actually contradicts the Gospel records. I did a study of this on my website if you're interested:

http://godskingdomfirst.org/DayJesusDied.htm

I cannot recommend any of his books for several reasons:

1. He does not cite sources in his writing.
   
2. He is divisive towards the body as a whole - clearly this stance conflicts with the message of Christ.
   
3. He contradicts himself leading to confusion when he claims he's trying to clear up confusion.
   
4. He preached 3 conflicting messages - one to the inner circle, one to the non-inner group, and still another to the unwashed masses.
   

To that list I would add that while he claimed to be substantiating some of his points using Greek, in many cases his knowledge of Greek was faulty at best. Just one example that comes to mind is the supposed difference between dechomai and lambano. You can't even find VPW's definitions in Bullinger.

[waysider]

To that list I would add that while he claimed to be substantiating some of his points using Greek, in many cases his knowledge of Greek was faulty at best. Just one example that comes to mind is the supposed difference between dechomai and lambano. You can't even find VPW's definitions in Bullinger.

Oh, sure, NOW you tell me!

After I've dedicated the last 10 years of my life to making those dechomai and lambano notations in all my Bibles.

[WhiteDove]

I agree with Mike that many of us in TWI didn't always remember exactly what we heard and when. I remember being very surprised, for example, when I couldn't find the whole "It's Christ in you!...what power we have if we only knew it" was not in the book. There were so many classes, commentaries and teachings based on the classes, advances, books, articles, tapes, etc, it's a wonder we could keep any of it straight. That's just the way human memory works, I don't care who you are. However does that mean that Mike is recalling them correctly? <_<

Now, if Mike has a copy of the video or audio class (one & the same) or an dependable transcript, I would tend to believe him, but would feel better if an additional witness could verify what he's saying. I've not found Mike to be a liar, but he does tend to quote what backs up his position while ignoring the rest.

What I don't agree with is that anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusions about PFAL as Mike did hasn't "mastered" the material. His stance that a different viewpoint is prima facie evidence of non-mastery is a circular argument.

Indeed Mike is correct, his title of PFAL Master is not in jeopardy today.....

Also

Tape #214 was recorded 10/17/65 according to the tape logs and it does cover the incident in question it also covers some info on Roselyn Rinker.

There are also transcripts of the PFAL Class and the AC as well by the way, whoever asked?

Of course I wouldn't know where to find them

[GrouchoMarxJr]

I contend that wierwille fails the criteria defined in the bible for Christian leadership. His lifestyle lines up more with Simon the sorceror than any Christian leader...He has disqualified himself by his behavior...God would never give a man like this the responsibility of teaching his truth...anyone who thinks differently must ignore the very scriptures that they claim to believe.

...be that as it may...the teachings themselves are sophmoric and lacking true scholarship...he literally stole the works of other people...word for word...gimme a break! How can any of you take anything that came from him seriously? He was out to make money...not to teach the truth!

[WhiteDove]

the teachings themselves are sophmoric and lacking true scholarship...he literally stole the works of other people...word for word...gimme a break!

So if VP literally stole the works of other people word for word and taught them , then you must think that their teachings (Bullinger,Welch,Leonard ect. were sophmoric?

[dmiller]

So if VP literally stole the works of other people word for word and taught them , then you must think that their teachings (Bullinger,Welch,Leonard ect. were sophmoric?

Good point. I've often wondered the same thing myself.

Where are the accusations against Bullinger/ Leonard/ Stiles/ etc.?

Not condoning docvic's actions by any means. He surely *wasn't the man he knew to be*.

I've yet to hear (read) any condemnations of Bullinger/ Stiles/ Welch/ Leonard/ etc.

If docvic was a smardastic plagiarist, that's one thing. Critics seem to be citing his sources.

I suppose it'll take a different thread to debunk them, eh? Or will that happen??

[Tzaia]

So if VP literally stole the works of other people word for word and taught them , then you must think that their teachings (Bullinger,Welch,Leonard ect. were sophmoric?

I think the reference was to writing style. I've only read Bullinger and I don't agree with his ultra-dispensation.

[Mike]

Well folks, this has been fun. However, I think we’ve nearly exhaused the subject of this thread, and I’ve recovered from my cold and ready to get back to work. I’ve tried to answer some in the recent round of posts below en masse.

***********************************

Mike, remind us which Corps you were in. And what TWI positions you held after graduation, and for how long.

Many of the people posting here are actually Corps grads. You know how many times we had to study the PFAL material?

From your last sentence might I conclude that you are Corps?

If so, I am thankful for your service in the Corps. I know I benefitted from Dr’s ministry, as well many thousands did, and I know for some considerable time and in some powerful ways The Way Corps was a very effective extension of his ministry.

But we all know there were times, especially into the 80’s, where the Corps was far from an honorable institution due to the behavior and attitudes of many within it. One of my credentials is that I was not sucked into that mess, but was able to perform my service outside Corps, twice as a twig leader, once as a WOW, a few years on HQ staff, and many years in helps and governments. I also was AV man for many classes, which meant I had to sit in the class for more continuous hours than the class instructors. I also researched “off the books” on a number of projects. I can compare my research files and the wide margin of my Cambridge with most Corps and come out with more “credentials” in those departments.

Do you know how much a twig leader had to study the materials? It was a lot, and then I put in a lot more.

IN SPITE of my extremely high and diligent study (often exceeding Corps) I was TOTALLY surprised at how much I had missed when I returned to the writings in 1998.

There were many reasons that in my recent ten year study I saw much that had eluded me in my early days.

One such reason was I was a different person. Another was I had adopted a new tool to use: utter and total respect. In my early days I had medium to low respect for the integrity of what was on the pages. Changing respect levels changes what I was able to see. Plus I had some guidance from another experienced grad as far as looking for deeper hidden spiritual truths. In my early days my study was primarily focused on checking up of vpw for accuracy, correcting my KJV in it’s wide margin, witnessing, and teaching my twig(s). In my post 1998 study I focused on the Return of Christ and my relationship to the Father. Having the guidance I just mentioned was crucial. I try to pass on some of the tips I received from this experienced grad here in my posting for those who want to see deeper.

Back to your question: yes, I know some grads and Corps did considerable study in the writings, but that doesn’t mean they were successful, or that they saw all that was in there. Hardly anyone has showed up here to impress me with their extensive and deep knowledge of the writings. Exactly the opposite HAS occurred frequently. I welcome exceptions.

I still assert (sans Corps credentials) that there are many great and wonderful surprises for those meek grads who return to the writings with meekness and willingness to accept some minimal guidance.

You know how many times we had to study the PFAL material? Teach things from it? Field Corps often ran classes; how many times do you think they heard the material? Had to answer questions on it. Others, Corps and non-Corps alike, ran twigs at which collaterals were made available - and would have to answer questions from new twiggies on TWI material. Some of these people may have done this for many years, especially field Corps.

Obviously you know it better, so I'm just asking for your creds.

Like I said, I did study before similar to or more than the Corps, yet I was stunned when I returned to try it again. My credentials are that I have engaged in deeper the study and can hold my own quite well with anyone who posts here, as well as in many e-mails and phone conversations I’ve had with many of the research luminaries of the ministry past. I simply employ advanced techniques others have only used on the ancient scriptures.

Also, perhaps you would tell us what non-TWI sources you have studied. There are on-line study guides, commentaries, etc (see, eg, Crosswalk) - some of which are valuable and some of which are less so. Some of them are pushing a point of view with some obviousness; others don't seem to be. Are you saying that VPW didn't push his point of view? Are you really saying that? Just like other reputable sources don't see things from their point of view?

It’s only in my post 1998 study that I’ve limited my study to PFAL. Before that (and I’ve posted much on this) I went to many other sources, including other churches. I especially studied the trinity and One God matters back then. Prior to that I went into Eastern religions and Philosophy quite a bit. I also have spent a lot of time in science, especially Physics, Math, and Neuroscience.

I know VPW pushed his point of view, but the point of this thread is whether or not he had (from the snow storm story) an upper hand from God and thus had a special point of view. If God did not intervene in 1942 on the catastrophic loss of the scriptures then vpw’s point of view is just another man. He claimed to NOT be a scholar, but just someone who got a special boost with a willingness to pass it on.

Anyway, Mike, why shouldn't it be "mixed with other teachers' comments and writings"? Who says it's "hopelessly mixed" (other than you)? I don't think even VPW said he had a monopoly on the truth. His claim was in the presentation of the truth.

If the snow story is factual and God intervened in 1942, then we should regard those revelations as superior to men’s opinions and sense knowledge research. If the 1942 intervention happened, then, YES, God’s monopoly on truth should be the only source we respect.

Shouldn't we be looking at the author and finisher of faith, the head of the Church, rather than at another disciple?

Yes, we should look to him, the author and finisher of faith, NOT via our own non-special hunches and feelings and senses research, though.

We should look to him and to the men he (the author and finisher of faith) appoionted as his spokesman. Two thousand years ago he appointed Paul, who had the most negative of credentials, and recently he appointed Victor Paul. That God and His Son can and will to work with sinners should give you great joy!

If the snow story is factual, then this should make reasonable sense. If not, then not.

***********************************

How many works by other theologians have you read, Mike?

I once took a Modern Theology class personally taught by Thomas Altizer, the famous "God is dead" theologian who scored a Time Magazine cover. He had us read a bunch of other theologians. This was a little after I took the class in the early 70's at Stony Brook University. I didn't like the class, but I did the reading.

***********************************

That's why I went through the books very carefully many times and my opinion, at the time, was that the books should be offered without the class because there were so many contradictions...

... the two passion accounts when they are clearly different narratives and disagree about whether Jesus was crucified on the day of the Passover preparation or before. The narratives in the Bible simply do not agree and I (now) disagree with the idea they must agree.

Oh, ok :unsure: now I see, :wacko: I think? :huh:

***********************************

Indeed Mike is correct, his title of PFAL Master is not in jeopardy today.....

Actually, although I could use the kudos here, and do appreciate the jovial "title," it's also important to point out that I'm simply engaged in the process of mastering it. Like I said I have a teacher who has guided me in my study of the collaterals. I would think that there are many here who could surpass my "mastery" by adopting my techniques and getting meek about it.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Mike

[WhiteDove]

I think the reference was to writing style. I've only read Bullinger and I don't agree with his ultra-dispensation.

If he stole their works word for word then the sophmoric writing style would not be VP's as he stole the style word for word Yes?

[PrimaryResearcher]

vpw and the snowjob

[waysider]

Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

By the power vested in me by myself, I hereby proclaim myself to be a vested proclaimer.

I thereby extend to myself, kudos for a proclamation well extended.

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

Yes, The Bible Tells Me So is sophomoric, regardless of where the content originated.

[waysider]

Stay tuned for another gripping episode of Wacky Stuff Exposed as we explore the possibility that E.T., The Extraterrestrial was actually a documentary.

[Mark Clarke]

Oh, sure, NOW you tell me!

After I've dedicated the last 10 years of my life to making those dechomai and lambano notations in all my Bibles.

Sorry, man! Better late than never.

[Oakspear]

If entire teachings were copied word-for-word, and if Wierwille's writing style was sophmoric, then yes, the writing style of the original author would necessarily also be sophmoric.

I've seen side-by-side comparisons that showed how certain sections of books by Stiles and Leonard were copied pretty close to word-for-word, with a few terms or some words changed here and there, but have not heard or seen anything to indicate that whole chapters, books or teachings were copied wholesale.

As far as error-ridden teachings of Wierwille being derived from others; sure, that does mean that the underlying teachings are error-ridden as well. Although I've seen several instances where Wierwille used Bullinger to back up his teachings, but misunderstood or misrepresented what Bullinger actually wrote, thereby changing the teaching.

[Mark Clarke]

So if VP literally stole the works of other people word for word and taught them , then you must think that their teachings (Bullinger,Welch,Leonard ect. were sophmoric?

Good point. I've often wondered the same thing myself.

Where are the accusations against Bullinger/ Leonard/ Stiles/ etc.?

Not condoning docvic's actions by any means. He surely *wasn't the man he knew to be*.

I've yet to hear (read) any condemnations of Bullinger/ Stiles/ Welch/ Leonard/ etc.

If docvic was a smardastic plagiarist, that's one thing. Critics seem to be citing his sources.

I suppose it'll take a different thread to debunk them, eh? Or will that happen??

I'm not familiar with Stiles or Welch, but Bullinger took Ultra-Dispensationalism to ridiculous extremes, and Leonard missed the boat on a lot of the Holy Spirit stuff, which Wierwille then stole/adapted. I personally get tired of hearing everybody complain about Wierwille stealing material, with comparatively little critique of the material he stole. I consider VP's writings sophomoric because he stole much of it uncritically, and then filled in with his own farm-boy logic to make it seem like his own.

[Mark Clarke]

It’s only in my post 1998 study that I’ve limited my study to PFAL. Before that (and I’ve posted much on this) I went to many other sources, including other churches. I especially studied the trinity and One God matters back then. Prior to that I went into Eastern religions and Philosophy quite a bit. I also have spent a lot of time in science, especially Physics, Math, and Neuroscience.

I once took a Modern Theology class personally taught by Thomas Altizer, the famous "God is dead" theologian who scored a Time Magazine cover. He had us read a bunch of other theologians. This was a little after I took the class in the early 70's at Stony Brook University. I didn't like the class,

But have you considered the works of other theologians who are 1) Non Trinitarian, and 2) Not of the "God is dead" persuasion? There are many (though obviously not in the majority, esp. concerning the Trinity) who have done much better jobs at teaching the Bible than VPW.

I know VPW pushed his point of view, but the point of this thread is whether or not he had (from the snow storm story) an upper hand from God and thus had a special point of view. If God did not intervene in 1942 on the catastrophic loss of the scriptures then vpw’s point of view is just another man. He claimed to NOT be a scholar, but just someone who got a special boost with a willingness to pass it on.

Catastrophic loss of the Scriptures? Wierwille never even claimed that! He never said the Scriptures were lost, and in fact encouraged us to read the Bible for ourselves to check him out. The textual evidence shows overwhelmingly that the Bible has been preserved better and more accurately than any comparable ancient writing.

If the snow story is factual and God intervened in 1942, then we should regard those revelations as superior to men’s opinions and sense knowledge research. If the 1942 intervention happened, then, YES, God’s monopoly on truth should be the only source we respect.

Since none of us was there, then we can't prove VP's credentials by the snow story. We must prove the snow story by the veracity of the teachings.

Yes, we should look to him, the author and finisher of faith, NOT via our own non-special hunches and feelings and senses research, though.

We should look to him and to the men he (the author and finisher of faith) appoionted as his spokesman. Two thousand years ago he appointed Paul, who had the most negative of credentials, and recently he appointed Victor Paul. That God and His Son can and will to work with sinners should give you great joy!

If the snow story is factual, then this should make reasonable sense. If not, then not.

If God appointed Paul the Apostle in the first century, and VP Wierwille in the twentieth, shouldn't they agree, doctrinally? But they don't! VP interpreted the NT in light of his Dispensationalist model, but Paul did no such thing. He taught the same Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus did, all the way through Acts, and never implied that that Gospel was "held in abeyance" or "only for Israel." And that's only one (major) point on which they disagree. There are others.

If VP's theology contradicts the Apostle Paul's, my money is on Paul being right and VP being wrong. And that would prove that he was not specially appointed by God to teach The Truth.

[Mike]

But have you considered the works of other theologians who are 1) Non Trinitarian, and 2) Not of the "God is dead" persuasion? There are many (though obviously not in the majority, esp. concerning the Trinity) who have done much better jobs at teaching the Bible than VPW.

Hi Mark,

My time now is very limited, but here goes. Yes, to the above. I was born Catholic and went with that school with all my heart until I was 20. There was plenty of trinity and "Jesus is God" in there. I often discussed my later views with Catholics as well as many Protestant strains. I've not been insular all my life, only the last ten years. I've looked at many points of view, but I reject them.

Catastrophic loss of the Scriptures? Wierwille never even claimed that! He never said the Scriptures were lost, and in fact encouraged us to read the Bible for ourselves to check him out. The textual evidence shows overwhelmingly that the Bible has been preserved better and more accurately than any comparable ancient writing.

Yes, he did!

He taught that the first century originals were lost. That's a catastrophe. He taught that at best all we had (in 1967) were 4th century fragmentary mis-copies of mis-copies of copies, with no certain knowledge of which sections are correct.

These ultra ancient NT manuscripts (fragments) are at extreme variance with each other, and that's the reason for the critical texts that started being produced in 1550 with Stevens. STILL, the many critical texts that sprung up are at variance with each other.

It's all a sense knowledge guess as to what the originals said, and this doesn't include the (still arguable) possibility of totally lost manuscripts, nor the entire problem of authoritative translation of dead languages.

The originals are catastrophically LOST!

What ARE well preserved are the post 4th century, and hence still ancient, copies of "whatever." The originals are lost and it's anybody's guess what was written, let alone spoken, in the first century. I realize this is far less the case with the OT.

If God appointed Paul the Apostle in the first century, and VP Wierwille in the twentieth, shouldn't they agree, doctrinally? But they don't! VP interpreted the NT in light of his Dispensationalist model, but Paul did no such thing. He taught the same Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus did, all the way through Acts, and never implied that that Gospel was "held in abeyance" or "only for Israel." And that's only one (major) point on which they disagree. There are others.

This is YOUR theological stance, to disregard dispensationalism of the kind VPW taught. You have a right to your selection of manuscripts, translators, and interpreters. I see VPW and Paul in total agreement, and that's my stance.

[WordWolf]

(snip)

From your last sentence might I conclude that you are Corps?

If so, I am thankful for your service in the Corps. I know I benefitted from Dr’s ministry, as well many thousands did, and I know for some considerable time and in some powerful ways The Way Corps was a very effective extension of his ministry.

But we all know there were times, especially into the 80’s, where the Corps was far from an honorable institution due to the behavior and attitudes of many within it. One of my credentials is that I was not sucked into that mess, but was able to perform my service outside Corps, twice as a twig leader, once as a WOW, a few years on HQ staff, and many years in helps and governments. I also was AV man for many classes, which meant I had to sit in the class for more continuous hours than the class instructors. I also researched “off the books” on a number of projects. I can compare my research files and the wide margin of my Cambridge with most Corps and come out with more “credentials” in those departments.

Do you know how much a twig leader had to study the materials? It was a lot, and then I put in a lot more.

For those who missed it, Mike did NOT spend time learning PERSONALLY from vpw,

FACE TO FACE like many of the Corps did.

To make his statements about vpw more authoritative than the posters who HAVE done so,

who dealt with him REGULARLY on a DAY TO DAY basis,

he has to pretend the Corps never really spent time studying pfal,

but HE did.

Part of this, now, is this fiction that twi leaders were REQUIRED to study pfal a lot.

"Do you know how much a twig leader had to study the materials? It was a lot"

NO IT WASN'T.

There was no requirement of minimum time before someone became a twig leader-

or a twig COORDINATOR, as vpw himself called them.

There was no weekly requirement for one to maintain BEING one.

That is an invention of Mike.

And this is the first we've heard of it.

One such reason was I was a different person. Another was I had adopted a new tool to use: utter and total respect. In my early days I had medium to low respect for the integrity of what was on the pages. Changing respect levels changes what I was able to see. Plus I had some guidance from another experienced grad as far as looking for deeper hidden spiritual truths.

But the REST of the Corps, see, the REST of the people who dealt with vpw face to face

all the time, especially the ones who post here, THEIR guidance is useless.....

Back to your question: yes, I know some grads and Corps did considerable study in the writings, but that doesn’t mean they were successful, or that they saw all that was in there. Hardly anyone has showed up here to impress me with their extensive and deep knowledge of the writings. Exactly the opposite HAS occurred frequently. I welcome exceptions.

"Impress me with their extensive and deep knowledge of the writings",

from Mike, means

"Say the same thing I am saying."

Anything else, no matter how profound, is dismissed by Mike, and Mike does NOT welcome it.

My credentials are that I have engaged in deeper the study and can hold my own quite well with anyone who posts here, as well as in many e-mails and phone conversations I’ve had with many of the research luminaries of the ministry past. I simply employ advanced techniques others have only used on the ancient scriptures.

Actually, everyone else has seen Mike's attempts here at the GSC crash and burn.

Each time, Mike has creatively reinterpreted them as remarkable successes.

Mike applies the same diligence that completely rewrites entire discussions

to the books supposedly authored by vpw.

Small wonder the end results are far from what's on the page.

[WordWolf]

I know VPW pushed his point of view, but the point of this thread is whether or not he had (from the snow storm story) an upper hand from God and thus had a special point of view. If God did not intervene in 1942 on the catastrophic loss of the scriptures then vpw’s point of view is just another man. He claimed to NOT be a scholar, but just someone who got a special boost with a willingness to pass it on.

Catastrophic loss of the Scriptures? Wierwille never even claimed that! He never said the Scriptures were lost, and in fact encouraged us to read the Bible for ourselves to check him out. The textual evidence shows overwhelmingly that the Bible has been preserved better and more accurately than any comparable ancient writing.

Mike,Jan 9 2009, 10:03 AM

Yes, he did!

He taught that the first century originals were lost. That's a catastrophe. He taught that at best all we had (in 1967) were 4th century fragmentary mis-copies of mis-copies of copies, with no certain knowledge of which sections are correct.

That's wrong on 2 counts, either of which invalidates Mike's position.

Count 1. What vpw actually said....

The Orange Book, page-127-128 says

"In proceeding as a workman, there is basic information which must be kept in

mind, the first of which is that no translation or version of the Bible may

properly be called the Word of God.

The Bible from which I have been quoting is called the King James Version.

It is not the King James Translation. If I had a King James translation in my

hands, I would have a Bible that is worth a great deal of money as a collector's

item. Once a translation has been made from an original text, like the Stephens

Text from which the King James was translated, the first copy is called a

translation. When scholars begin to rework the translation in any way, it becomes

a version.

Now, I said that no translation, let alone a version, may properly be called the

Word of God. As far as anybody knows, there are no original texts in existence

today. The oldest dated Biblical manuscript is from 464 AD and written in

Aramaic in Estrangelo script. There are older Aramaic manuscripts written in the

Estrangelo script which predate 464 AD, but these are not Biblical texts.

What students or scholars refer to as 'originals' really date from 464 AD and

later. These manuscripts are not originals--the originals are those which holy

men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. At best, we have copies

of the originals. When I refer to the Word of God, I do not mean a copy or a

translation or a version; I mean that Word of God which was originally given by

revelation to holy men.

Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to

the fifth century AD,

how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of

God spoke?

To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version,

we have to compare one word with another word

and one verse with another verse.

We have to study the context of all the verses.

If it is the Word of God, then if cannot have a contradiction

for God cannot contradict Himself.

Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding.

When we get back to that original, God-breathed Word-

which I am confident we can-

then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the

prophets of old, 'Thus saith the Lord'. "

Read it for yourself. Did vpw claim the Scriptures were "catastrophically lost"?

Did he claim the 4th century manuscripts were "at extreme variance with each other"?

Did he claim the critical texts are "at variance with each other"?

Did he say "The originals are catastropically LOST"?

Did he say that what's in the originals is "ANYBODY'S GUESS"?

HARDLY.

He said he was CONFIDENT WE (not "HE", "WE") can get back to the originals by careful study of the current translation OR VERSION.

1) Compare one word with another word

2) Compare one verse with another verse

3) Study the context of all the verses

4) The results can contain no contradictions-God cannot contradict Himself.

5) Resolve errors by finding where they originate- the translation or in the understanding of the student (or both)

What happens when WE (not "HE", "WE") diligently apply these principles?

"WE GET BACK TO THAT ORIGINAL, GOD-BREATHED WORD".

According to vpw.

According to Mike, that's a futile effort- the current English versions are useless, and getting back to that original,

God-Breathed Word is "ANYBODY'S GUESS".

Mike's premise runs contrary to the clear statements of vpw.

================

B) It's wrong on a SECOND count because Mike hobbles his study by limiting himself to the limitations of vpw. Where vpw was notably weak,

Mike will forever be notably weak, and can never exceed vpw's skils.

vpw himself claimed the oldest texts were Aramaic. This is especially peculiar, since the more evidence is uncovered, the more this

is shown to contradict all the archeology, all the discovered texts, manuscripts, and so on.

vpw parroted George Lamsa on the subject.

Lamsa is the one who pushed the "Aramaic first" position.

This was advantageous to Lamsa, as he put forth he was THE

Aramaic expert,

which would make himself THE Bible expert.

For Lamsa, I think this was a deliberate attempt to inflate

his own importance.

vpw was NEVER a good researcher. His "best work" was photocopies

of the work of others, and often the deeper things showed a lack

of understanding of what he was copying.

(That's why his definition of "word of knowledge" is INCORRECT,

despite being derived from Leonard's definition, which IS correct.)

So, when Lamsa made a convincing-sounding case for Aramaic,

vpw lifted Lamsa's claims entirely.

If vpw had done his own research, he would have seen that his

own claims of the earliest texts being from the FOURTH century

were off by at least 200 years,

as was known at least 20 years before he put this error in writing.

See,

in Bullinger's time, (a century ago),

such a claim would fly.

The last century, however, has seen many new manuscripts

come to light, and the dates of the earliest texts now can reach VERY

far back, compared to what was available before then.

So, I think it was LAZINESS and BAD RESEARCH.

His area of study was NOT Bible languages, Koine Greek, Hebrew.

His area of study was NOT Bible History-archeology, and so on.

Those require a lot of study and significant amounts of memorization.

He wasn't "hot" in those areas, either-as real students of them can easily point out.

Even the passing mention of "earliest texts" in the Orange Book fail to mention

documents found in the early 1950s-and the copyright is early 1970s.

I know they didn't have the internet, but he kept getting all those magazines

that kept going in the trash-and THEY would have mentioned that was NEWS.

His area of study was "Homiletics", which, IMHO, is the EASIEST/ "softest" option

to take in a Bible college.

As it is, a diligent student AT THE TIME VPW WAS STUDYING could know better than that.

Since then, the information is at the fingertips of anyone who can go to a decent library,

or search the internet.

These ultra ancient NT manuscripts (fragments) are at extreme variance with each other, and that's the reason for the critical texts that started being produced in 1550 with Stevens. STILL, the many critical texts that sprung up are at variance with each other.

It's all a sense knowledge guess as to what the originals said, and this doesn't include the (still arguable) possibility of totally lost manuscripts, nor the entire problem of authoritative translation of dead languages.

The originals are catastrophically LOST!

What ARE well preserved are the post 4th century, and hence still ancient, copies of "whatever." The originals are lost and it's anybody's guess what was written, let alone spoken, in the first century. I realize this is far less the case with the OT.

I'm confident nearly any of you, with enough patience, (and many of you quickly) could find enough information just on the internet

to completely discredit Mike's claims here- Mike's claims of "extreme variance" of manuscripts, texts or both,

Mike's claim (vpw's claim) of only post 4th century being preserved.

As to Mike's claim that what the originals said are "a sense-knowledge guess",

Mike himself (as has been pointed out a number of times) rejects the word of vpw on that one.

vpw said WE could do it.

Did vpw really mean WE could do it, not "HE" could do it?

vpw said "WE" in that passage FIVE TIMES.

That's what vpw said A LOT. Is that what vpw meant?

Does anyone besides Mike think vpw could keep saying "WE" all the time and mean "ME" each time?

[oldiesman]

Maybe, but you won't catch me scouring the works of L. Ron Hubbard for a "what's right with it, what's wrong with it" review.

That's too bad because I thought your past research on the blue book noting what's good with it and what's bad with it was quite a fair and respectable effort. BTW what happened to your Living Epistles website?

[Mike]

My comments are in blue, below. WordWolf's are in black.

Mike,Jan 9 2009, 10:03 AM

That's wrong on 2 counts, either of which invalidates Mike's position.

Count 1. What vpw actually said....

The Orange Book, page-127-128 says

"In proceeding as a workman, there is basic information which must be kept in

mind, the first of which is that no translation or version of the Bible may

properly be called the Word of God.

The Bible from which I have been quoting is called the King James Version.

It is not the King James Translation. If I had a King James translation in my

hands, I would have a Bible that is worth a great deal of money as a collector's

item. Once a translation has been made from an original text, like the Stephens

Text from which the King James was translated, the first copy is called a

translation. When scholars begin to rework the translation in any way, it becomes

a version.

Now, I said that no translation, let alone a version, may properly be called the

Word of God. As far as anybody knows, there are no original texts in existence

today. The oldest dated Biblical manuscript is from 464 AD and written in

Aramaic in Estrangelo script. There are older Aramaic manuscripts written in the

Estrangelo script which predate 464 AD, but these are not Biblical texts.

What students or scholars refer to as 'originals' really date from 464 AD and

later. These manuscripts are not originals--the originals are those which holy

men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. At best, we have copies

of the originals. When I refer to the Word of God, I do not mean a copy or a

translation or a version; I mean that Word of God which was originally given by

revelation to holy men.

WW, above in red is where VPW taught that the ORIGINALS were catastrophically (my word, and a good one) lost. He repeats it in red below.

Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back

to the fifth century AD, how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which

was given when holy men of God spoke?

To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version,

we have to compare one word with another word

and one verse with another verse.

We have to study the context of all the verses.

If it is the Word of God, then if cannot have a contradiction

for God cannot contradict Himself.

Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding.

When we get back to that original, God-breathed Word-

which I am confident we can-

then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the

prophets of old, 'Thus saith the Lord'. "

This here is a highly abbreviated account (other pieces from other teachings of VPW add to this) for how we "get back" to the originals. We must do these things mentioned here as well as other things he will teach us later.

We must ask ourselves here, is this "getting back" to be with sense knowledge authority or with spiritual Godly authority. This is the thread topic, whether we believe the snow storm story initiates the possibility of a spiritual Godly authority in the "getting back" by going beyond a sense knowledge attempt at reconstruction.

Read it for yourself. Did vpw claim the Scriptures were "catastrophically lost"?

Yes, he implied it, and my use of that word fits if it's true what he said about the originals being lost.

Did he claim the 4th century manuscripts were "at extreme variance with each other"?

This can be found in the introduction to the Interlinear Greek text VPW had sold in the bookstore. There's a reason why 16th century scholars, starting with Stevens, had to "criticize" the ancient texts and produce something they thought better. THey had to decide which fragments to put in their text and wich ones to reject BECAUSE they varied.

Did he claim the critical texts are "at variance with each other"?

This can be also seen in Interlinear Greek text VPW had sold in the bookstore at the bottom of almostr EVERY PAGE are sometimes DOZENS of variations in the supposedly modern critical texts.

Did he say "The originals are catastropically LOST"?

He has used words like "forged," "counterfeited," and "devilish" to describe how inaccurate some manuscripts are in places.

Did he say that what's in the originals is "ANYBODY'S GUESS"?

If it's not by revelation then that's all there is, guesses, educated guesses at best, but then you have to guess which "educated" guess is the best educated and therefore correct.

I use my own words at times to give the gist of the words he used. I stand by them.

...............

As to Mike's claim that what the originals said are "a sense-knowledge guess",

Mike himself (as has been pointed out a number of times) rejects the word of vpw on that one.

vpw said WE could do it.

I never said this.

I said what modern scholars produce and claim to be what the originals said... THAT is a sense-knowledge guess on the part of those modern scholars.

VPW implied we could get back to the originals if we stuck with his 1942 guidance.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Mike

[Jim]

You know, I've always been perturbed with VPW's contention that we can follow his rules and get back to "the God-breathed Word". Knowing a tiny bit about information theory, I know that once information is lost, it's lost. And no amount of fiddling will bring it back. He give us no reasoned argument why his method should be considered reliable, which I find somewhat incredible given his non-stop rants about upholding "the accuracy of God's Word".

[potato]

WW: Did vpw claim the Scriptures were "catastrophically lost"?

Mike: Yes, he implied it, and my use of that word fits if it's true what he said about the originals being lost.

WW: Did he say that what's in the originals is "ANYBODY'S GUESS"?

Mike: I use my own words at times to give the gist of the words he used. I stand by them.

Mike: VPW implied we could get back to the originals if we stuck with his 1942 guidance.

this seems to go beyond Mike's personal opinion and into a critical analysis of what vpw meant when he said certain things... things that Mike can't personally know because he didn't discuss them with vpw. Mike is implying that the only way to get back to the "original meaning" is by accepting that vpw's accounts of the alleged revelation and snowstorm in 1942 are true, and that there is no other way to get to the heart of god.

Mike, sounds to me like you're claiming to be a prophet, since you claim to have special insight into what vpw meant.