No, I do not do this for cheap sensationalism at all. Please see the third part to my long post to WW below for more details on this subject.
When Dr said "the Word of God" he was USUALLY not referring to the written Bible, but to the spiritual revelation given to the Biblical writers, as well as revelation given to us today. (BTMS 23,24)
When he said "Bible" he was referring to the flesh realm written form of God's Word. (RHST p.27)
The Word of God is spiritual, invisible, and existed in the beginning, before God created the physical universe and matter, is unalterable and indestructible.
The Bible is God's spiritual Word put into written form, started existing only when the "ink hit the parchment," is in the flesh realm not the spiritual, is composed of matter, and can be altered or even destroyed.
I never ever heard Dr say "It's the Bible! It's the Bible! And nothing but the Bible!"
Like you I had merged "Bible" and "Word of God" into one concept, but Dr had two distinct categories in mind for those two distinct phrases. When I came back to seriously master the PFAL writings this was shown to me, and now I've seen it all throughout his writings this way.
***
Yes, Dr said that in his own writings he could and did make mistakes, but he also said that the very special PFAL writings were NOT his own (nor were they owned by Stiles, Kenyon, etc.) and that they were perfect.
TNDC p. 34:
"If you by your free will accept Christ as your Savior and renew your mind according to The Word, you will find that every word I have written to you is true. I challenge you to stand upon the Word of God, declare your authority in Christ and claim your rights."
TNDC p. 116:
"Paul in I Thessalonians 2:13, thanked God that “when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.” You too must follow God’s truth as told in the Word of God. But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive. If you know that what I am saying to you are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is speaking to you by me, then you too will manifest the greatness of the power of God. If you will literally do what I ask you, then you can manifest the fullness of the abundance of God, the wonderful power of God."
Every single time in a twig that I heard an interpretation of tongues in the first or in the third person it was the case that God was magnified in my mind.
The sentence "My children I, God Almighty, promise to meet all your needs" magnifies God to me.
The sentence "My brothers, God Almighty promises to meet all our needs" magnifies God to me.
Where did you get the idea that the only way to magnify God was to have someone praise Him in the second person?
You wrote: "You must be reading a heavily-edited version of your own posts."
Could you please tell me exactly what version of my posts (regarding my handling the definitions of the word "law" with Raf) are YOU are reading? Are they from memory, or are you actually reading them? The reason I ask is because that conversation with Raf you reported does not ring a bell in my memory at all. I'd like to see the thread. If I made a mistake I can admit it.
I was not intentionally lying when I say I've asked him repeatedly that if believing is not a law then WHAT IS A LAW? I'm talking spiritual here. I have no doubt Raf has plenty of examples of legal or scientific laws. I've asked for what DOES qualify as a law in the place where believing does not?
***
As far as the king "technicaly" owning all the women of the kingdom, Dr was not teaching there that this is the way it technically should be in principle, or that this is the way the Mosaic law was technically written. If he was teaching that I would see a red flag there, but I never did hear it that way at all. Anyone who DID think Dr was teaching that a king should own all the women in the kingdom is, in my opinion, crazy.
From the first time I heard it in the class it was obvious to me that Dr was saying that IN HUMAN NATURE (which is devil sculpted or modified from Adam) the king technically (or according to the techniques that predominate in man's fallen nature) has his "pick of the litter" or has the last say, or has the upper hand, or "owns" all the women.
We don't have much of a political kingdom here in the USA, and even in Europe that system has been gone for the most part for centuries. But I bet that the way things operate in the few absolute monarchies that are left, or in those countries run by an absolute dictator, the top man gets any woman he wants.
We do have minor kingdoms here, where this part of human nature can be plainly observed:
In the kingdom of "Rolling Stones groupies" Mick Jagger gets his pick.
In the Kennedy Camelot JFK technically owned all the White House secretaries and could pick any one he wanted... almost.
In any high school Jock Society, the football captain can muscle his way past just about any of the cheerleaders' boyfriends and "own" the girl he wants.
In any branch or limb I saw where the leader was single, most single women had their eyes fixed on him above the other Joe believers.
This stuff is just plain common sense!
When I first heard the class and Dr hit that line about David THESE are the images I had communicated to me. I don't know why you would think he was saying the Mosaic law gave the king this ownership. It's just "the way things are" that he was talking about there, about how women (I think we're talking YOUNG women here, aren't we?) flock to the top man in any society. It's as sure as young men looking at the most beautiful women with great yearning, like in the opening scene of "Gone with the Wind" where Scarlett O'Hara holds court with her admirers.
If you read "Mosaic law" into what what Dr was saying in PFAL regarding David's "ownership" then, sure, you can see that part has an error. But I think it's error to read that into that line in PFAL. I never did it.
***
You wrote: "and yet, with all your reading of pfal, you STILL miss its testimony about The Word of God, and how reading the English Versions, it is possible to get to The Word of God...."
I don't miss that at all. You missed my comment yesterday that on every page of PFAL I thankfully am exposed to KJV verses. You missed my frequent comments that the first 27 years of my PFAL curriculum was RIGHTLY spent pouring over the KJV. You missed my several times issued comments that for a new person, I would recommend copious KJV reading AS PART of their PFAL study. Dr urges KJV reading in those books.
For OLGs, the time finally came (phasing in slowly from 1975 to '85) when we were supposed to turn our attention from KJV focus to PFAL focus. That's the message of Dr's Last/Lost Teaching.
And lastly, you missed the idea that in order to GET TO the Word of God, reading English Versions is certainly not the ONLY tool we must use. Without the 1942 promise Dr taught the Word was buried. There were lots of people reading English Versions prior to 1942, yet the word was buried, AS SO HE TAUGHT.
Here's a reminder of Session Three that you evidently forgot:
From segment 16:
"No translation, no translation, and I want you to listen
very carefully; for no translation, and by the way that's
all we have today at best are translations. No translation
may properly be called The Word Of God... ..no translation!"
Then a minute later he repeats:
"Now I said that no translation, no translation, LET ALONE A VERSION,
no translation may properly be called The Word Of God..."
That's eight times (new beginning) that he uses the phrase "no translation."
Then several minutes later he hits it again:
"And in this class on Power For Abundant Living, when I
refer to The Word Of God I may hold the King James Version
or I may hold some other version and point to it; I do not
mean that version. I mean that Word of God which was
originally given when holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Spirit."
Yes, to get to the original Word of God, reading of English versions is necessary. But the PFAL guidance from God to Dr to us is also crucial if we want to get all the way back to the original revelation.
Lets see. I did not, at least at the time, believe that those were "the words da holy ghost speaking to you by me" and never really bought into that concept. The Bible talked about SIT, and for me, that was good enough. On top of that, I had and still have some real doubts about the India experience he spoke about in session one.
In spite of not LITERALLY believing wierwille, and not LITERALLY carrying out his instructions, I spoke in tongues. Now he says, "If you believe that this is just VP, you will never manifest." At the time, I thought he was giving far too much credit to himself.
Are you suggesting, that somehow, counter to Wierwille's writings, that somehow I received "a false tongue"?
Lets consider things a little further.. it was not a known language to me, and I was not possessed, completely in control of my faculties. Neither did I open my mouth and "breath in the spirit" I just spoke.
Maybe this is like the baptism issue. Got everything, but somehow must humble oneself and go back to get baptized because somehow, the new birth really means nothing.
So, if what he said was actually true, and THE WORD OF GOD, in order for me to genuinely manifest the spirit, I must go back, humble myself to da teachings of wierwille, and do it all over.
Why can't you give me credit for the many (most) threads I stay away from? This thread is right on topic with everything I post about, AND other posters here continually address me and want to discuss things with me.
If I was an infection, shouldn't you be angry at those who dialog with me and encourage me to post more? Why don't you mock or deride them too? Aren't they just as much responsible for my "infections" here?
There are two other threads in About the Way I've been on recently, both about the TWI website. I happened to go over there to that website and posted a whole bunch of "infections" there too. I was a part of the GreaseSpotters who went there, and I talked a bit to the webmaster by e-mail so it is only proper that I discuss our "adventures" there on threads here.
Do you dislike me so intensely because I make too much sense and people have a hard time undoing and negating my message?
Why can't you give me credit for the many (most) threads I stay away from? This thread is right on topic with everything I post about, AND other posters here continually address me and want to discuss things with me.
If I was an infection, shouldn't you be angry at those who dialog with me and encourage me to post more? Why don't you mock or deride them too? Aren't they just as much responsible for my "infections" here?
There are two other threads in About the Way I've been on recently, both about the TWI website. I happened to go over there to that website and posted a whole bunch of "infections" there too. I was a part of the GreaseSpotters who went there, and I talked a bit to the webmaster by e-mail so it is only proper that I discuss our "adventures" there on threads here.
Do you dislike me so intensely because I make too much sense and people have a hard time undoing and negating my message?
Okay, first - I don't intensely dislike you. I don't dislike you.
Second, you don't make sense.
Third, for every thread you haven't infected, I thank you.
I post what I post about you because when I see you co-opt a thread to push your idolatry of docvic(praise be his name), that thread is for all intents and purposes, with regards to the original topic, over. And that gets to be somewhat irritating.
Thank you for engaging me. It makes you come across as more human to me if we can talk a little.
I'm trying my hardest to make sense. When people miss my point or ask me what I mean I try to answer and clarify myself.
If you would do that, point out where something doesn't fit, I'd be happy to work on a better way of saying it. You may not LIKE the point I make, but I'll at least try to make it clear.
I can understand you not being happy with my message when it IS clear too. But why not engage me like the others do, instead of just mocking me? If you engage in the conversation more, your own position will become more clear to you. Who knows, you may even want to modify it from a dialog with me.
I can understand the distaste I must produce in many people's perceptions when I post, and not just yours. We ALL went through a lot of garbage, and for me to bring PFAL to the forefront is very understandably distressing to many here... at first. But many of those who communicate with me on these things soon find that I am NOT trying to bring back ANY of the bad stuff, only the good.
Yes, what I propose about PFAL being God-breathed is an ASTOUNDINGLY anti-traditional message. It is familiar to people ONLY in the context of kooky religious nuts, so I understand THAT distasteful association also. But I can also appreciate that when each portion f the original Bible was being written, the traditionalists of THAT day must have had a fit also.
ANYTHING that defys tradition will provoke all sorts of hate and fear of the unknown, whether it's from the false god or from the True God. Why not take the position of wise old Gamaliel in Acts when the chief priests wanted to execute Peter and John for THEIR anti-traditional message? He urged that if Peter and John were of God then opposing their message would be dangerous, and if they were not of God, then the chief priests ought to give them enough rope to "hang themselves."
If what I am saying is really all that stupid or devilish, I'll sooner or later paint myself into a corner, run out of steam, or loose the protection of God and die. You don't have to get all bothered by me if my message is wrong. And if I'm right then it'll be you that paints yourself into a corner.
I invite you to engage me more often and see what happens. Think about this: If I'm right, wouldn't it be a GREAT thing that we have God's Word like it hasn't been known since the first century, and that we actually CAN tap into all nine all the time?
Everything I just said to Steve would apply as addressed to you too. Instead of attacking me personally like a TWI person would, why not focus on the details of what I say.
As far as being narcissistic, you might try to imagine how you'd feel if some certain several people always posted against you with great invective like you and several others habitually do here against me.
Attack the message and you have something substantial to say to those who are eavesdropping. Attack the messanger and you only leave eavesdroppers with a bad example to imitate.
Do you dislike me so intensely because I make too much sense and people have a hard time undoing and negating my message?
Actually, I found it was a fairly easy task. The only difficulty is in your persistent denials that this task was accomplished within a week of your arrival.
quote:
Originally posted by Mike:
Raf,
It's not riddled with errors if you use the proper set of tools to examine it.
Mike, if you're going to make that distinction between the Bible and the Word of God, then how do you handle this statement, which I heard VPW make on several occasions:
"The Bible does not contain the Word of God, it is the Word of God."
That doesn't seem to fit with what you're saying here.
You wrote: "I post what I post about you because when I see you co-opt a thread to push your idolatry of docvic(praise be his name), that thread is for all intents and purposes, with regards to the original topic, over. And that gets to be somewhat irritating."
I often purposely wait until a thread is for all intents pretty well over before I start posting JUST SO THAT the original poster has a chance to get it all said and not heave me prevent them from completing their intent.
And what difference does it make if the thread gets longer than the originator intends. I think they may often LIKE that to keep it around longer, increase in prominence on the board, and give them more opportunities to ferret out more details that they had originally planned.
I really do try to not derail and prevent snyone from getting their intent expressed.
As far as the amount of posting I do, I am very willing to help defray the costs for this board's operation. How much $$ should I send and where do I send it. (I might ask for a slight delay here to wait out the rainy season) I have offered to contribute here, and I also understand a few reasons why my offer might be declined. Things like that can get complicated.
Also as far as sheer volume goes, there aere many, many people here who post huge volumes of silly things or waste hard drive space with unneeded quotations of whole posts of others. Hard drive space gets cheaper and cheaper every year. The text volume I post is tiny compared to the whole operation here.
I urge you and other vociferous critics of me here to hold back on those very human traits to ban, or mock like we all saw happen in TWI so badly.
I understand the right and the appropriateness of opposition to ideas and the expression thereof, but a lot of the emotion and attack modes often employed in that expression can not only be wasteful and hurtful to those who operate that way, but it can be counterproductive too.
You wrote: "Mike, if you're going to make that distinction between the Bible and the Word of God, then how do you handle this statement, which I heard VPW make on several occasions: __ 'The Bible does not contain the Word of God, it is the Word of God.' __ That doesn't seem to fit with what you're saying here."
First of all, it would help if I had the location of where that is written. I do remember things like that being SAID, but I'm not so sure it was written that way. Plus, if the context is on the table, then we could proceed better. But I'll work with you on this a little without that benefit for now.
You might notice that I said USUALLY this is the way Dr separated those two ideas. In the way a dictionary is produced, the editors look to how a word is USUALLY used, not to each and every application.
An author can occasionally deviate from the usual usage of a word for various reasons. I've seen in the PFAL book the title of Part II is "The Bible Is the Word of God." I can see an exception here to Dr's usual pattern for various reasons, the largest I suspect is brevity. The title of each Part in that book appears at the top of each lefthand page. Having the whole idea of "The Bible is the Word of God in Written Form" is a little cluttered and long for a page header. The full idea is spelled out in the contents of the chapters that comprise that part, so it's up there in the header to remind the reader where he's at more than to spell out the whole idea to him.
I can see, in addition to brevity and neatness, that contrast is another reason to truncate sentences like the one you quoted. To say "The Bible does not contain the written form of the Word of God, it IS the written form of the Word of God" loses some of it's punch and rememberability in full form like that. It was the contrast between "is" and "contains" that he was communicating in sentences like that, not the dichotomy of natural/factual versus spiritual/true.
***
Here is something that Abigail (I think it was her? maybe Oakspear too?) noticed many months ago here. When Dr said in the class that he decided long ago to take the Word of God as his only rule for faith and practice he wasn't talking about any written versions, or even any ancient texts. He was talking about the revelation that God had promised He would give him, not "the Bible." The phrase "the Bible" is too vague a term for anyone to take as a rule for faith and practice, because for one reason, one Bible contradicts another in places. Bibles differ, so which one was he referring to as his only rule? Even the relatively modern critical Greek texts differ, so they couldn't have been his only rule. The ancient fragments differ EVEN MORE amongst themselves, which is the reason for the critical texts to be compiled in the first place.
It was the spiritual Word of God, his promised revelations, that he was talking about as his only rule.
And this used to get me very angry at him, when he'd say things like "We haven't found a text yet, but my spiritual perception of this tells me the original should read..." or "We finally found a text that verifies what I knew all along." This used to get me furious when he'd talk like that. I'd think, wait a minute, I thought he took the written text as his only rule, now he's contradicting himself. I just didn't know that he differentiated between the spiritual and the physical so sharply. He says so in BTMS on pages 23 and 24, but by then in my curriculum I thought that book was too far beneath me to bother reading it any more.
It's a good thing for me I didn't listen to this until after I was shown the difference between the Bible and the Word of God, but in the University of Life Ephesians tape #17 he went one step farther. There he says (paraphrasing) """We may never find a text for this in my lifetime, but I know that the original says...""" I'd most likely have quit the ministry if I had heard that tape ten years earlier.
I also used to get annoyed when he's find only one text to back him up. I'd think what it THAT text was a forgery, though??? I was often exasperated at how he knew which text or fragment was ok and which ones were not. Now I know the answer: God told him. His search for the good texts was not only to guide his understanding, but to verify what God told him as well as help his students believe what he was teaching. Ditto (often or mostly) for us "checking it out" on our own.
***
Now here's something REALLY interesting. In PFAL he says (paraphrasing again for speed): """MY only rule for faith and practice is the [spiritual] Word of God."""
In his last Way Magazine he writes: """OUR only rule for faith and practice is the [physical] Bible."""
Why the change in "my" to "our" ???
Why the change in "Word of God" to "Bible" ???
In 1942 there was no clear, definitive, authoritative physical Bible for him to adopt as his only rule. Just the opposite, he was ready to chuck the whole thing, and he didn't think the word "Holy" should be on the physical covers. He was taught in divinity school all the issues I abbreviated here in the phrase "tattered remnants" and he was ready to quit all his association with all Bibles and ministering because he had nothing that he'd never had to "back up on."
Remember that phrase "back up on" and how he used it in "The Way Living in Love" right next to where he describes what God audibly spoke to him in 1942? We used to repeat that phrase and it's context often in the 70's and then it disappeared, from even the TVT.
On page 178 Elena quotes Dr saying:
“I was praying. And I told Father that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on.
"And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others."
So, in 1942 Dr, in his discouragement with the lack of definitive written words directly from God, Dr alone is given the promise of hearing those definitive, authoritative, "never have to back up on" words straight from the Father as he promises to teach them to others.
Dr is alone in having this promised help from the Father, so that's why he recalls his ministry's begining in the PFAL book using that phrase """MY only rule"""
In 1985, that project is nearly completely finished, and in Dr' last written teaching of those revelations to us he switches to """OUR only rule""" including us in on it.
Also in 1985 he also switches from "Word of God" being that rule to Bible. Why? If he meant some printed version of the ancient scriptures like the usual word "Bible" means, then everything would fall to pieces. We'd have to ask him WHICH Bible is our only rule? Which version??? Which critical Greek text?? Aramaic??? Which fragments??? These should have been our hot questions at that time, but by then most of us OLGs were asleep or off on our own tangents to have even noticed. Our sleepiness is how Dr's very last teaching. "The Joy of Serving," got so lost also. I am STILL running into grads who have no idea of it's existence, thinking that his second to last teaching, "The Hope," was his last. In the non-Corps population it's been unknown to 99% of the grads I've run into in the last 7 years, and I've run into several hundred.
In 1985, when Dr writes that the [physical] Bible was OUR only rule for faith and practice he was referring to the just completed set of PFAL writings "in book and magazine form" !!!
Now we can see the fulfillment of the earlier foretelling prophecy that the greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is the revealed [written form] Word and will of God.
Can Dr do that? Can he change the common definition of "Bible" from the hotel-room-placed Gideon to the the 'book and magazine form" of PFAL ??? NO! Of course not! ...but God can...
In summary:
1942: Dr's only rule was the set of spiritual revelations God promised and gave him and him alone.
1985: Our only rule is the is the set of physical PFAL writings comprising the NEW Bible from God.
I've been wanting to get this posted for two full years now. Thank you Linda Z for pulling it out of me.
I've never taken much interest in Mike's postings, but I've read some of his stuff here. I'm quite amazed. And a bit amused at how you furiously rewrite the rules to save your self-generated illusion of rightness. Even with a question as innocuous as Linda's. Amazing.
Question. Mike, have you ever responded to Raf's points concerning PFAL errors brought up when you first washed up on these shores? Raf, did he? I find few of the conclusions even arguable. Most seem so solid as to be incontrovertible. Not that I'm all that interested to tell you the truth. Curious, I guess.
*Physical pfal writings comprising the New bible from God* Sheeshe, VP himself would have been apoplectic at your bastardization of what he believed/taught Mike. As little use as I have for him, he undoubtedly would have considered your assertions blasphemy.
Your explanation of what Wierwille was actually saying when he declared that "technically" the King owned, or had a right to, every woman in the kingdom is wrong.
When "technically" is used the way Wierwille used it, it carries the meaning of "according to the law, or rules". It is often used in the sense of something that is legally true, but not carried out in practice. For example, if I buy a car and then give it to my son, expecting him to pay for insurance and registration costs, take care of all upkeep, and allow him exclusive use of the car, the car is technically mine, but for all practical purposes the car is my son's. In effect the car is my son's, but technically it is mine.
While I agree that David, as the King, could have for all practical purposes had any woman in the kingdom due to his influence and possibily charisma, and maybe fear of consequenses, it is incorrect to state that it was "technically" true.
By stating that "technically" David, as King, had a right to any woman in the kingdom, he was communicating that there was either a biblical or legal right that no one could argue with. Since there was no such right, Nathan was right in confronting David.
The fact that you thought he was saying "that IN HUMAN NATURE (which is devil sculpted or modified from Adam) the king technically (or according to the techniques that predominate in man's fallen nature) has his "pick of the litter" or has the last say, or has the upper hand, or "owns" all the women. " only shows that you don't understand how the word "technically" is used.
IF Wierwille meant what you thought he meant, then he should have said something like "In effect, the King could have any woman in the kingdom" or "For all practical purposes, the king could have any woman in the kingdom". That would match your perception.
Wierwille either
Purposely taught it the way he did to biblically justify his own behavior or
Didn't understand the proper use of the word "technically" in this context
You stated that anyone who thought that Wierwille was saying that all women in the kingdom should belong to the king was crazy (in your opinion).
I have yet to see anyone actually claim that Wierwille was teaching that, only that he taught that they did. Put that strawman to bed.
Question. Mike, have you ever responded to Raf's points concerning PFAL errors brought up when you first washed up on these shores? Raf, did he? I find few of the conclusions even arguable. Most seem so solid as to be incontrovertible. Not that I'm all that interested to tell you the truth. Curious, I guess.
No, he did not. He has not. He continues to dodge, distract...
I couldn't help but notice that you only spent 9 minutes max reading that long post of mine AND then coming to the conclusion you wrote. I've spent 7 years on that same set of ideas before I wrote them. I suggest you take some more time in thinking about these things, AND in reading my other posts which you admitted not doing.
There was no furious re-writing of anything on my part. I simply waited for that moment to post what I did. If there's any hasty thining going on here it's in you, not me.
It is obvious, IMHO, that Wierwille believed that God gave "holy men of God" the revelation to write the bible "in olden times"; that errors crept in (both intentional and unintentional) over the years and that no modern written bible can be properly called "THE Word of God".
However, I believe it is equally obvious that he believed that through using "the keys" one could determine what that original word of God said.
Did he believe that his PFAL book replaced the bible? No; but he did believe that his translations and his interpretation were superior to any and all that came before him. Not only did he believe that his handling of the "original" texts was superior to all, but lacking textual evidense his insights were to be given more credence than any written evidense.
In effect whatever he said was "The Word of God" was "the Word of God".
For all practical purposes, on some levels the words of Wierwille were the words of God.
Not technically though :D-->
The so-called keys were a distraction, a way to make us think that we could "work the Word" on our own and be free from popes and theologians and priests and ministers. They were a hook to draw us in to Wierwille's world.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
42
42
104
94
Popular Days
Feb 22
44
Feb 28
40
Mar 11
40
Mar 1
34
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 42 posts
HCW 42 posts
Mike 104 posts
Ham 94 posts
Popular Days
Feb 22 2005
44 posts
Feb 28 2005
40 posts
Mar 11 2005
40 posts
Mar 1 2005
34 posts
Popular Posts
Bolshevik
Remember the ROA everyone smiling stupid all day? Zombies. Just zombies. With snack tents.
Rocky
Not that I necessarily disagree with you two, but returning to the topic of the PFLAP class... it's all about removing uncertainty from us and replacing it with Victor Wierwille. He had ONE freak
Bolshevik
I can't say what Christian practices are. Any quote by LCM should be read as if he is yelling or at a low rumble leading up to the yelling . . . Certainly sounds like an inner conflict
Mike
UncleHairy,
No, I do not do this for cheap sensationalism at all. Please see the third part to my long post to WW below for more details on this subject.
When Dr said "the Word of God" he was USUALLY not referring to the written Bible, but to the spiritual revelation given to the Biblical writers, as well as revelation given to us today. (BTMS 23,24)
When he said "Bible" he was referring to the flesh realm written form of God's Word. (RHST p.27)
The Word of God is spiritual, invisible, and existed in the beginning, before God created the physical universe and matter, is unalterable and indestructible.
The Bible is God's spiritual Word put into written form, started existing only when the "ink hit the parchment," is in the flesh realm not the spiritual, is composed of matter, and can be altered or even destroyed.
I never ever heard Dr say "It's the Bible! It's the Bible! And nothing but the Bible!"
Like you I had merged "Bible" and "Word of God" into one concept, but Dr had two distinct categories in mind for those two distinct phrases. When I came back to seriously master the PFAL writings this was shown to me, and now I've seen it all throughout his writings this way.
***
Yes, Dr said that in his own writings he could and did make mistakes, but he also said that the very special PFAL writings were NOT his own (nor were they owned by Stiles, Kenyon, etc.) and that they were perfect.
TNDC p. 34:
"If you by your free will accept Christ as your Savior and renew your mind according to The Word, you will find that every word I have written to you is true. I challenge you to stand upon the Word of God, declare your authority in Christ and claim your rights."
TNDC p. 116:
"Paul in I Thessalonians 2:13, thanked God that “when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.” You too must follow God’s truth as told in the Word of God. But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive. If you know that what I am saying to you are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is speaking to you by me, then you too will manifest the greatness of the power of God. If you will literally do what I ask you, then you can manifest the fullness of the abundance of God, the wonderful power of God."
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
Every single time in a twig that I heard an interpretation of tongues in the first or in the third person it was the case that God was magnified in my mind.
The sentence "My children I, God Almighty, promise to meet all your needs" magnifies God to me.
The sentence "My brothers, God Almighty promises to meet all our needs" magnifies God to me.
Where did you get the idea that the only way to magnify God was to have someone praise Him in the second person?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
You wrote: "You must be reading a heavily-edited version of your own posts."
Could you please tell me exactly what version of my posts (regarding my handling the definitions of the word "law" with Raf) are YOU are reading? Are they from memory, or are you actually reading them? The reason I ask is because that conversation with Raf you reported does not ring a bell in my memory at all. I'd like to see the thread. If I made a mistake I can admit it.
I was not intentionally lying when I say I've asked him repeatedly that if believing is not a law then WHAT IS A LAW? I'm talking spiritual here. I have no doubt Raf has plenty of examples of legal or scientific laws. I've asked for what DOES qualify as a law in the place where believing does not?
***
As far as the king "technicaly" owning all the women of the kingdom, Dr was not teaching there that this is the way it technically should be in principle, or that this is the way the Mosaic law was technically written. If he was teaching that I would see a red flag there, but I never did hear it that way at all. Anyone who DID think Dr was teaching that a king should own all the women in the kingdom is, in my opinion, crazy.
From the first time I heard it in the class it was obvious to me that Dr was saying that IN HUMAN NATURE (which is devil sculpted or modified from Adam) the king technically (or according to the techniques that predominate in man's fallen nature) has his "pick of the litter" or has the last say, or has the upper hand, or "owns" all the women.
We don't have much of a political kingdom here in the USA, and even in Europe that system has been gone for the most part for centuries. But I bet that the way things operate in the few absolute monarchies that are left, or in those countries run by an absolute dictator, the top man gets any woman he wants.
We do have minor kingdoms here, where this part of human nature can be plainly observed:
In the kingdom of "Rolling Stones groupies" Mick Jagger gets his pick.
In the Kennedy Camelot JFK technically owned all the White House secretaries and could pick any one he wanted... almost.
In any high school Jock Society, the football captain can muscle his way past just about any of the cheerleaders' boyfriends and "own" the girl he wants.
In any branch or limb I saw where the leader was single, most single women had their eyes fixed on him above the other Joe believers.
This stuff is just plain common sense!
When I first heard the class and Dr hit that line about David THESE are the images I had communicated to me. I don't know why you would think he was saying the Mosaic law gave the king this ownership. It's just "the way things are" that he was talking about there, about how women (I think we're talking YOUNG women here, aren't we?) flock to the top man in any society. It's as sure as young men looking at the most beautiful women with great yearning, like in the opening scene of "Gone with the Wind" where Scarlett O'Hara holds court with her admirers.
If you read "Mosaic law" into what what Dr was saying in PFAL regarding David's "ownership" then, sure, you can see that part has an error. But I think it's error to read that into that line in PFAL. I never did it.
***
You wrote: "and yet, with all your reading of pfal, you STILL miss its testimony about The Word of God, and how reading the English Versions, it is possible to get to The Word of God...."
I don't miss that at all. You missed my comment yesterday that on every page of PFAL I thankfully am exposed to KJV verses. You missed my frequent comments that the first 27 years of my PFAL curriculum was RIGHTLY spent pouring over the KJV. You missed my several times issued comments that for a new person, I would recommend copious KJV reading AS PART of their PFAL study. Dr urges KJV reading in those books.
For OLGs, the time finally came (phasing in slowly from 1975 to '85) when we were supposed to turn our attention from KJV focus to PFAL focus. That's the message of Dr's Last/Lost Teaching.
And lastly, you missed the idea that in order to GET TO the Word of God, reading English Versions is certainly not the ONLY tool we must use. Without the 1942 promise Dr taught the Word was buried. There were lots of people reading English Versions prior to 1942, yet the word was buried, AS SO HE TAUGHT.
Here's a reminder of Session Three that you evidently forgot:
From segment 16:
"No translation, no translation, and I want you to listen
very carefully; for no translation, and by the way that's
all we have today at best are translations. No translation
may properly be called The Word Of God... ..no translation!"
Then a minute later he repeats:
"Now I said that no translation, no translation, LET ALONE A VERSION,
no translation may properly be called The Word Of God..."
That's eight times (new beginning) that he uses the phrase "no translation."
Then several minutes later he hits it again:
"And in this class on Power For Abundant Living, when I
refer to The Word Of God I may hold the King James Version
or I may hold some other version and point to it; I do not
mean that version. I mean that Word of God which was
originally given when holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Spirit."
Yes, to get to the original Word of God, reading of English versions is necessary. But the PFAL guidance from God to Dr to us is also crucial if we want to get all the way back to the original revelation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve!,
Are you proposing that I be banned from posting my opinion?
Are you aware of the two threads currently running that decry how disgusting it is the way TWI always bans people from expressing their opinions?
Are you aware of the (at least) three posters who recently expressed their delight that I am able to post my opinion?
If someone else posts a lot on a thread do you call THAT person's posts an infection?
Do you care to match wits with me right here, or on any other thread of your choosing, and see who's opinions can stand up to the heat of battle?
Do you think you are capable of answering my questions?
Do you know how TWI-like you sound in how you want me gone?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Lets see. I did not, at least at the time, believe that those were "the words da holy ghost speaking to you by me" and never really bought into that concept. The Bible talked about SIT, and for me, that was good enough. On top of that, I had and still have some real doubts about the India experience he spoke about in session one.
In spite of not LITERALLY believing wierwille, and not LITERALLY carrying out his instructions, I spoke in tongues. Now he says, "If you believe that this is just VP, you will never manifest." At the time, I thought he was giving far too much credit to himself.
Are you suggesting, that somehow, counter to Wierwille's writings, that somehow I received "a false tongue"?
Lets consider things a little further.. it was not a known language to me, and I was not possessed, completely in control of my faculties. Neither did I open my mouth and "breath in the spirit" I just spoke.
Maybe this is like the baptism issue. Got everything, but somehow must humble oneself and go back to get baptized because somehow, the new birth really means nothing.
So, if what he said was actually true, and THE WORD OF GOD, in order for me to genuinely manifest the spirit, I must go back, humble myself to da teachings of wierwille, and do it all over.
Somehow, I don't buy it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Mr. Hammeroni,
No, I don't think that you got a false tongue at all.
It's the "greatness of the power of God" and the "fullness of the abundance of God" that are mentioned on page 116 of TNDC there, not just SIT.
You just said that you believed the Bible taught SIT. You sat throught the class and absorbed enough to SIT.
But if you want to receive the FULLNESS of all that's available, THEN you are going to have to get meek to the full revelation of PFAL.
There's a lot more to holy spirit than just SIT.
I too had plenty of doubts about Dr then, yet I spoke in tongues without difficulty.
Many people could SIT before Dr was born, but they couldn't tap into ALL that God wanted for them.
It's the "greatness of the power of God" and the "fullness of the abundance of God" that are mentioned on page 116 of TNDC there, not just SIT.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
And Steve!,
Why can't you give me credit for the many (most) threads I stay away from? This thread is right on topic with everything I post about, AND other posters here continually address me and want to discuss things with me.
If I was an infection, shouldn't you be angry at those who dialog with me and encourage me to post more? Why don't you mock or deride them too? Aren't they just as much responsible for my "infections" here?
There are two other threads in About the Way I've been on recently, both about the TWI website. I happened to go over there to that website and posted a whole bunch of "infections" there too. I was a part of the GreaseSpotters who went there, and I talked a bit to the webmaster by e-mail so it is only proper that I discuss our "adventures" there on threads here.
Do you dislike me so intensely because I make too much sense and people have a hard time undoing and negating my message?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
Mike....tsk,tsk,tsk... you have been mirror-gazing a bit much again, haven't you???
You really ought to re-read your stuff before posting -- you really get narcissistic in a big way at times, ie, see above...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Okay, first - I don't intensely dislike you. I don't dislike you.
Second, you don't make sense.
Third, for every thread you haven't infected, I thank you.
I post what I post about you because when I see you co-opt a thread to push your idolatry of docvic(praise be his name), that thread is for all intents and purposes, with regards to the original topic, over. And that gets to be somewhat irritating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve!,
Thank you for engaging me. It makes you come across as more human to me if we can talk a little.
I'm trying my hardest to make sense. When people miss my point or ask me what I mean I try to answer and clarify myself.
If you would do that, point out where something doesn't fit, I'd be happy to work on a better way of saying it. You may not LIKE the point I make, but I'll at least try to make it clear.
I can understand you not being happy with my message when it IS clear too. But why not engage me like the others do, instead of just mocking me? If you engage in the conversation more, your own position will become more clear to you. Who knows, you may even want to modify it from a dialog with me.
I can understand the distaste I must produce in many people's perceptions when I post, and not just yours. We ALL went through a lot of garbage, and for me to bring PFAL to the forefront is very understandably distressing to many here... at first. But many of those who communicate with me on these things soon find that I am NOT trying to bring back ANY of the bad stuff, only the good.
Yes, what I propose about PFAL being God-breathed is an ASTOUNDINGLY anti-traditional message. It is familiar to people ONLY in the context of kooky religious nuts, so I understand THAT distasteful association also. But I can also appreciate that when each portion f the original Bible was being written, the traditionalists of THAT day must have had a fit also.
ANYTHING that defys tradition will provoke all sorts of hate and fear of the unknown, whether it's from the false god or from the True God. Why not take the position of wise old Gamaliel in Acts when the chief priests wanted to execute Peter and John for THEIR anti-traditional message? He urged that if Peter and John were of God then opposing their message would be dangerous, and if they were not of God, then the chief priests ought to give them enough rope to "hang themselves."
If what I am saying is really all that stupid or devilish, I'll sooner or later paint myself into a corner, run out of steam, or loose the protection of God and die. You don't have to get all bothered by me if my message is wrong. And if I'm right then it'll be you that paints yourself into a corner.
I invite you to engage me more often and see what happens. Think about this: If I'm right, wouldn't it be a GREAT thing that we have God's Word like it hasn't been known since the first century, and that we actually CAN tap into all nine all the time?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
alfakat,
Everything I just said to Steve would apply as addressed to you too. Instead of attacking me personally like a TWI person would, why not focus on the details of what I say.
As far as being narcissistic, you might try to imagine how you'd feel if some certain several people always posted against you with great invective like you and several others habitually do here against me.
Attack the message and you have something substantial to say to those who are eavesdropping. Attack the messanger and you only leave eavesdroppers with a bad example to imitate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actually, I found it was a fairly easy task. The only difficulty is in your persistent denials that this task was accomplished within a week of your arrival.
Mike,
Yes it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Mike, if you're going to make that distinction between the Bible and the Word of God, then how do you handle this statement, which I heard VPW make on several occasions:
"The Bible does not contain the Word of God, it is the Word of God."
That doesn't seem to fit with what you're saying here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve!,
One other point.
You wrote: "I post what I post about you because when I see you co-opt a thread to push your idolatry of docvic(praise be his name), that thread is for all intents and purposes, with regards to the original topic, over. And that gets to be somewhat irritating."
I often purposely wait until a thread is for all intents pretty well over before I start posting JUST SO THAT the original poster has a chance to get it all said and not heave me prevent them from completing their intent.
And what difference does it make if the thread gets longer than the originator intends. I think they may often LIKE that to keep it around longer, increase in prominence on the board, and give them more opportunities to ferret out more details that they had originally planned.
I really do try to not derail and prevent snyone from getting their intent expressed.
As far as the amount of posting I do, I am very willing to help defray the costs for this board's operation. How much $$ should I send and where do I send it. (I might ask for a slight delay here to wait out the rainy season) I have offered to contribute here, and I also understand a few reasons why my offer might be declined. Things like that can get complicated.
Also as far as sheer volume goes, there aere many, many people here who post huge volumes of silly things or waste hard drive space with unneeded quotations of whole posts of others. Hard drive space gets cheaper and cheaper every year. The text volume I post is tiny compared to the whole operation here.
I urge you and other vociferous critics of me here to hold back on those very human traits to ban, or mock like we all saw happen in TWI so badly.
I understand the right and the appropriateness of opposition to ideas and the expression thereof, but a lot of the emotion and attack modes often employed in that expression can not only be wasteful and hurtful to those who operate that way, but it can be counterproductive too.
Please... lets try a truce of sorts... ok?
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf,
Then if your mission of negating me is accomplished, I guess I won't be seeing much of you anymore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You haven't been. Relatively, anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Mike -
You don't engage others. You talk at them. You ignore what they have to say.
I refuse to fight in a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent, or especially one that is only half-armed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Linda Z,
You wrote: "Mike, if you're going to make that distinction between the Bible and the Word of God, then how do you handle this statement, which I heard VPW make on several occasions: __ 'The Bible does not contain the Word of God, it is the Word of God.' __ That doesn't seem to fit with what you're saying here."
First of all, it would help if I had the location of where that is written. I do remember things like that being SAID, but I'm not so sure it was written that way. Plus, if the context is on the table, then we could proceed better. But I'll work with you on this a little without that benefit for now.
You might notice that I said USUALLY this is the way Dr separated those two ideas. In the way a dictionary is produced, the editors look to how a word is USUALLY used, not to each and every application.
An author can occasionally deviate from the usual usage of a word for various reasons. I've seen in the PFAL book the title of Part II is "The Bible Is the Word of God." I can see an exception here to Dr's usual pattern for various reasons, the largest I suspect is brevity. The title of each Part in that book appears at the top of each lefthand page. Having the whole idea of "The Bible is the Word of God in Written Form" is a little cluttered and long for a page header. The full idea is spelled out in the contents of the chapters that comprise that part, so it's up there in the header to remind the reader where he's at more than to spell out the whole idea to him.
I can see, in addition to brevity and neatness, that contrast is another reason to truncate sentences like the one you quoted. To say "The Bible does not contain the written form of the Word of God, it IS the written form of the Word of God" loses some of it's punch and rememberability in full form like that. It was the contrast between "is" and "contains" that he was communicating in sentences like that, not the dichotomy of natural/factual versus spiritual/true.
***
Here is something that Abigail (I think it was her? maybe Oakspear too?) noticed many months ago here. When Dr said in the class that he decided long ago to take the Word of God as his only rule for faith and practice he wasn't talking about any written versions, or even any ancient texts. He was talking about the revelation that God had promised He would give him, not "the Bible." The phrase "the Bible" is too vague a term for anyone to take as a rule for faith and practice, because for one reason, one Bible contradicts another in places. Bibles differ, so which one was he referring to as his only rule? Even the relatively modern critical Greek texts differ, so they couldn't have been his only rule. The ancient fragments differ EVEN MORE amongst themselves, which is the reason for the critical texts to be compiled in the first place.
It was the spiritual Word of God, his promised revelations, that he was talking about as his only rule.
And this used to get me very angry at him, when he'd say things like "We haven't found a text yet, but my spiritual perception of this tells me the original should read..." or "We finally found a text that verifies what I knew all along." This used to get me furious when he'd talk like that. I'd think, wait a minute, I thought he took the written text as his only rule, now he's contradicting himself. I just didn't know that he differentiated between the spiritual and the physical so sharply. He says so in BTMS on pages 23 and 24, but by then in my curriculum I thought that book was too far beneath me to bother reading it any more.
It's a good thing for me I didn't listen to this until after I was shown the difference between the Bible and the Word of God, but in the University of Life Ephesians tape #17 he went one step farther. There he says (paraphrasing) """We may never find a text for this in my lifetime, but I know that the original says...""" I'd most likely have quit the ministry if I had heard that tape ten years earlier.
I also used to get annoyed when he's find only one text to back him up. I'd think what it THAT text was a forgery, though??? I was often exasperated at how he knew which text or fragment was ok and which ones were not. Now I know the answer: God told him. His search for the good texts was not only to guide his understanding, but to verify what God told him as well as help his students believe what he was teaching. Ditto (often or mostly) for us "checking it out" on our own.
***
Now here's something REALLY interesting. In PFAL he says (paraphrasing again for speed): """MY only rule for faith and practice is the [spiritual] Word of God."""
In his last Way Magazine he writes: """OUR only rule for faith and practice is the [physical] Bible."""
Why the change in "my" to "our" ???
Why the change in "Word of God" to "Bible" ???
In 1942 there was no clear, definitive, authoritative physical Bible for him to adopt as his only rule. Just the opposite, he was ready to chuck the whole thing, and he didn't think the word "Holy" should be on the physical covers. He was taught in divinity school all the issues I abbreviated here in the phrase "tattered remnants" and he was ready to quit all his association with all Bibles and ministering because he had nothing that he'd never had to "back up on."
Remember that phrase "back up on" and how he used it in "The Way Living in Love" right next to where he describes what God audibly spoke to him in 1942? We used to repeat that phrase and it's context often in the 70's and then it disappeared, from even the TVT.
On page 178 Elena quotes Dr saying:
“I was praying. And I told Father that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on.
"And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others."
So, in 1942 Dr, in his discouragement with the lack of definitive written words directly from God, Dr alone is given the promise of hearing those definitive, authoritative, "never have to back up on" words straight from the Father as he promises to teach them to others.
Dr is alone in having this promised help from the Father, so that's why he recalls his ministry's begining in the PFAL book using that phrase """MY only rule"""
In 1985, that project is nearly completely finished, and in Dr' last written teaching of those revelations to us he switches to """OUR only rule""" including us in on it.
Also in 1985 he also switches from "Word of God" being that rule to Bible. Why? If he meant some printed version of the ancient scriptures like the usual word "Bible" means, then everything would fall to pieces. We'd have to ask him WHICH Bible is our only rule? Which version??? Which critical Greek text?? Aramaic??? Which fragments??? These should have been our hot questions at that time, but by then most of us OLGs were asleep or off on our own tangents to have even noticed. Our sleepiness is how Dr's very last teaching. "The Joy of Serving," got so lost also. I am STILL running into grads who have no idea of it's existence, thinking that his second to last teaching, "The Hope," was his last. In the non-Corps population it's been unknown to 99% of the grads I've run into in the last 7 years, and I've run into several hundred.
In 1985, when Dr writes that the [physical] Bible was OUR only rule for faith and practice he was referring to the just completed set of PFAL writings "in book and magazine form" !!!
Now we can see the fulfillment of the earlier foretelling prophecy that the greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is the revealed [written form] Word and will of God.
Can Dr do that? Can he change the common definition of "Bible" from the hotel-room-placed Gideon to the the 'book and magazine form" of PFAL ??? NO! Of course not! ...but God can...
In summary:
1942: Dr's only rule was the set of spiritual revelations God promised and gave him and him alone.
1985: Our only rule is the is the set of physical PFAL writings comprising the NEW Bible from God.
I've been wanting to get this posted for two full years now. Thank you Linda Z for pulling it out of me.
.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I've never taken much interest in Mike's postings, but I've read some of his stuff here. I'm quite amazed. And a bit amused at how you furiously rewrite the rules to save your self-generated illusion of rightness. Even with a question as innocuous as Linda's. Amazing.
Question. Mike, have you ever responded to Raf's points concerning PFAL errors brought up when you first washed up on these shores? Raf, did he? I find few of the conclusions even arguable. Most seem so solid as to be incontrovertible. Not that I'm all that interested to tell you the truth. Curious, I guess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
*Physical pfal writings comprising the New bible from God* Sheeshe, VP himself would have been apoplectic at your bastardization of what he believed/taught Mike. As little use as I have for him, he undoubtedly would have considered your assertions blasphemy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mike:
Your explanation of what Wierwille was actually saying when he declared that "technically" the King owned, or had a right to, every woman in the kingdom is wrong.
When "technically" is used the way Wierwille used it, it carries the meaning of "according to the law, or rules". It is often used in the sense of something that is legally true, but not carried out in practice. For example, if I buy a car and then give it to my son, expecting him to pay for insurance and registration costs, take care of all upkeep, and allow him exclusive use of the car, the car is technically mine, but for all practical purposes the car is my son's. In effect the car is my son's, but technically it is mine.
While I agree that David, as the King, could have for all practical purposes had any woman in the kingdom due to his influence and possibily charisma, and maybe fear of consequenses, it is incorrect to state that it was "technically" true.
By stating that "technically" David, as King, had a right to any woman in the kingdom, he was communicating that there was either a biblical or legal right that no one could argue with. Since there was no such right, Nathan was right in confronting David.
The fact that you thought he was saying "that IN HUMAN NATURE (which is devil sculpted or modified from Adam) the king technically (or according to the techniques that predominate in man's fallen nature) has his "pick of the litter" or has the last say, or has the upper hand, or "owns" all the women. " only shows that you don't understand how the word "technically" is used.
IF Wierwille meant what you thought he meant, then he should have said something like "In effect, the King could have any woman in the kingdom" or "For all practical purposes, the king could have any woman in the kingdom". That would match your perception.
Wierwille either
You stated that anyone who thought that Wierwille was saying that all women in the kingdom should belong to the king was crazy (in your opinion).
I have yet to see anyone actually claim that Wierwille was teaching that, only that he taught that they did. Put that strawman to bed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No, he did not. He has not. He continues to dodge, distract...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
TheEvan,
I couldn't help but notice that you only spent 9 minutes max reading that long post of mine AND then coming to the conclusion you wrote. I've spent 7 years on that same set of ideas before I wrote them. I suggest you take some more time in thinking about these things, AND in reading my other posts which you admitted not doing.
There was no furious re-writing of anything on my part. I simply waited for that moment to post what I did. If there's any hasty thining going on here it's in you, not me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
It is obvious, IMHO, that Wierwille believed that God gave "holy men of God" the revelation to write the bible "in olden times"; that errors crept in (both intentional and unintentional) over the years and that no modern written bible can be properly called "THE Word of God".
However, I believe it is equally obvious that he believed that through using "the keys" one could determine what that original word of God said.
Did he believe that his PFAL book replaced the bible? No; but he did believe that his translations and his interpretation were superior to any and all that came before him. Not only did he believe that his handling of the "original" texts was superior to all, but lacking textual evidense his insights were to be given more credence than any written evidense.
In effect whatever he said was "The Word of God" was "the Word of God".
For all practical purposes, on some levels the words of Wierwille were the words of God.
Not technically though
:D-->
The so-called keys were a distraction, a way to make us think that we could "work the Word" on our own and be free from popes and theologians and priests and ministers. They were a hook to draw us in to Wierwille's world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.