Your last long post proves to me you have shut off the crtical (ability to judge for one's self) part of your brain and have succumbed to a demonic thought that somehow the same scripture that Jesus said was not to be added to or subtracted from has been altered by God through vpw.
When you got mad at him, that was good. He needed to be confronted in thought and in person. We can't just accept everything he said as god-breathed. Heck, his shtick wouldn't let him do that.
You wrote: "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."
You are operating on the idea that there is some common, singular, official, authoritative definition of words that Dr might be right with or wrong with. There is not.
Words have slightly different meanings to different people. When a dictionary is made, the editors try to corral all these differing usages into a smaller set of MOST often used definitions. They might like to get it down to only one usage in this attempt, but almost all words resist this constraint. Almost all words have SEVERAL definitions in any large dictionary. A few years pass and the population wrenches the usage of a word in a new direction and the editors console themselves in that they have job security.
That said, remember how were taught that God uses the MAN'S vocabulary to covey His revelation. We were not taught that God uses the "official" definition of the words, but He uses that one man's vocabulary, that one man's own definitions of words.
So, if it were the case that Dr had a "wrong" definition of the word "technical" God would bow to Dr's definition to impart His revelation. I too bow to it, and I had no trouble understanding that Dr was talking about the commonly observed patterns of human behavior we see everyday.
I bow to people's idiosyncratic use of words all the time, and so do you. It's the only way we can communicate with each other. I can see the word "technique" is the root of "technicality" so commonly practiced techniques is an easy thing to see in Dr's intended use of that word. (Besides, I looked it up in my dictionary, and that was one of the official :D--> uses.)
***
And, TheEvan, just in case you think I'm re-writing here, or making it up as I go (like I've often been accused of) I've posted this same thing here before about individualistic use of words departing from the official dictionary. Besides, just like there's no official Bible version, there's no official dictionary, outside some institution officially adopting one as it's own standard.
This came up on the "Masters..." thread a year ago when Mandii objected to the meaning of the word "master" as she was used to thinking of it (((She's doing well, by the way. I just talked with her yesterday.)))
On that thread I showed how there are three vastly differing definitions out there for the word "reverse" and how hardly anyone is aware of this fact for various reasons. Because people have a tendency of latching on THEIR own definition and NOT bowing to other uses of the word reverse the riddle is a real stumper and has been for 3000 years.
In this case it's the hidden or elusive nature of two of the definitions that induce people to resist bowing. I've seen heated arguments on this riddle where people latch on so hard onto their own definition that they get angry at the other person who also does not see or yield.
In other arguments it's often the case that two people fight in a debate over some concepts due to definition differences, and out of stubbornness or ignorance of the other definition no one yields. If one is smart enough to finaly see that the argument is a mere differing over definitions, and yields to the other's definition, the argument suddenly ceases. This yielding or bowing to definitions is common in enlightened people. God too.
I posted long ago here that as a child in the 1950's I remember our anti-Beatnik English teacher trying to eradicate the word "ain't" and we kids would tease Miss Crabtree by saying within earshot: "'Ain't' ain't a word because it ain't in the dictionary!" We would squeal with delight at such a grammatical rebellion. WE KIDS knew that ain't was a real word, and the "official" dictionary be damned. We knew it was real because we USED IT. This was before the first ever slang dictionary came out. I remember slang dictionaries being a big deal when they appeared. Now they're common. Now even my spell checker has "ain't" in it.
***
In summary, Dr did not teach it was right for the king to help himself to any woman he wanted. Nor was Dr wrong in writing that way he did to document the commonly known practice of the king helping himself to whichever women he wanted. We are free to read error into it, but I will refrain.
You are operating on the idea that there is some common, singular, official, authoritative definition of words that Dr might be right with or wrong with. There is not.
And you are operating on the idea that there is some reason why Wierwille had to be right in all that he wrote. There is not. :D-->
While it is true that words have definitions that are sometimes flexible to an extent, it seems that if what you say is true, Wierwille flexed the meaning pretty far.
quote:
So, if it were the case that Dr had a "wrong" definition of the word "technical" God would bow to Dr's definition to impart His revelation
Maybe God shouldn't have bowed so much. Maybe then somebody other than you would have understood what "Doctor" *gag* really meant, since he was apparently incapable of expressing himself clearly in such an "important revelation".
Keep in mind that Wierwille made the point that the David's sin was killing off Uriah, not the adultery with Bathsheba. David was sinning because of his having sexual relations with Bathsheba because the torah said so. Wierwille brought up his view that "technically" all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king to illustrate how the sexual relations between David & Bathsheba were not a sin. If he was referring merely to custom, or prevailing "devilish" mentality, how would that make their act not sinful?
quote:
I can see the word "technique" is the root of "technicality" so commonly practiced techniques is an easy thing to see in Dr's intended use of that word. (Besides, I looked it up in my dictionary, and that was one of the official uses.)
Ya? We're talking about the word technically, not technicality.
Edited by Oakspear
Mike, you owe me for my drycleaning bill, and for cleaning coffee off of my monitor!
Idiosyncratic, indeed!
You just went and proved my point about arguing with half-wits!
Oakspear, the phrase "pearls before swine" comes to mind. Of course, I do realize that you're tying half your brain behind your back just to attempt to level the playing field. But still . . .
Mike, I quoted from 3 different materials, not counting Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life. Interestingly, Ruben Archer Torrey, who was 1st
Dean of Academics and later 2nd President of Dwight Moody Bible Institute taught Wednesday
crucifixation and Saturday Ressurrection back in
late 1870's. You spoke of Orientalisms by Pillai
and Lamsa,not counting Errico, Charles Freeman,
Howaed Voss, and Victor Matthews, plus Ralph
Gower(who revised Fred Wight). Also, you forgot
Bullinger, Kenyon, Smith Wigglesworth, Peale,
Schuller, Derek Prince, Lester Sumrall, Albert
Cliffe, Albert Benjamin Simpson, E.Stanley Jones
Howard Carter, Hagin, Copeland, Jerome Edwin
Stiles, Brian George Leonard, Mosley,etc. At least John Brown shows more respect to me, although I do disagree with him, but I respect
what he believes. Yet, you pout, whine and cry
acting like a spoiled brat if I challenge you to think for yourself. Maybe Wierwille should have smacked your face and ex-communicated you for heresy and for not living a Christ-like
attitude.If Jesus Christ is not God, then neither was Wierwille. Check out Karl Kahler's book. Also Did you know that Ernst Wierwille was
an alcoholic and beat both Emma and all the children. That's why young Victor Paul went into the woods, to escape his father's beating,
not because he was a modern Francis of Assisi
preaching to the trees and animals. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but didn't VPW say that the love of God was "tough love". Gang ,sorry for straying from the topic, but I don't take kindly to fools. TLB
I'm too tired right now to read all of these pages... but way back on page one or two Mike said:
quote:
Why are they "great" if they are riddled with the kinds of errors I just listed?
Why is their never hearing of PFAL so significant to you? Does fame = truth in your book?
Mike... maybe because they are filled with LOVE AND KINDNESS.... you remember those concepts don't you? you don't need a class for them... just a desire...
ok -- Fair enough. Let's use Docvic's (or maybe your) *set of tools*, on Interpretion of Tongues.
Doc was a big one on *first usage*, right??. What was the first usage of speaking in tongues, and the interpretation right after, in Acts?? If you answered *It magnified God* -- I'll give you an A+.
However -- Docvic went on to teach that tongues and interpretaton was a message from God or for God and that directly contradicts Acts (in the first usage) --- where it was a *message* To God As Praise.
If you hold a fellowship in your home, and have manifestations, and call on someone to speak in tongues and then interperet, their interpretation better not start out with "My Children" -- cause if it does -- you all are doing something that is not in the book of Acts, but are following veepee's teaching.
Whenever I hear *My Children* in a believer's meeting --- IT IS PROPHECY! Doen't believe me?? Take a look at Acts 2:11 -- where the witnesses of the Apostles speaking in tongues gave witness to the fact that the Apostles were praising God , NOT giving a message from God.
OK -- That is what I said, and here is how you resonded:
quote:
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?
You missed ENTIRELY what I was saying. Certainly that phrase *magnifies God*, but you know what??? It (as interpretation of tongues) is totally contradictory to what took place in Acts, the first time SIT, and IOT took place.
My question to you was -- If docvic was so *big* on first usage in the bible as being the way it was to follow in the rest of the book, why did he teach something that goes contradictory to the first usage of SIT, and IOT??
Prophecy is a message from God, and tongues is a message for God. As I said -- the *my children* intro to an interpretation doesn't fit into the message for God *scheme of things*, that was evident in Acts -- and in it's first usage.
Now --- How did Doc miss that, and still propound *first usage supremecy*??
You wrote a few days ago: "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."
Contrary to Raf's answer to your question, yes. I spent some time on Raf's thread in spite of my objections to their methods and attitudes for working on those apparent errors. I worked a little with them on the David issue, I think. It was a while ago. I saw that in order for me to deal with what they had there I would be constantly derailing their chosen path. They wanted to find error; I wanted to see past the illusion of errors. I've since then dealt with a few issues on other threads.
I have posted a lot of the great differences in the two methods, and twice recently. Each method is fundamentally different. Due to 27 years of experiences, and due to a few things that God has worked in my life, I start out assuming that there are no errors, and then look for ways to reconcile the apparent ones that sometimes pop up.
I choose this method because of the extreme amount of confidence I have built up over the years that the PFAL writings are of God. It's exactly analogous to the method Dr taught us i the class for dealing with the apparent errors in the versions of the Bible we have available to us today, but with a few differences.
Another method, the one that I used to examine PFAL for those 27 years, involves taking a look at the writings without the assumption that they are perfect, and letting the chips fall where they may as things are worked. Most of the items I looked at those 27 years eventually straighten out and I concluded that they were only apparent errors. A few lingered. One of the problems with this method is that one never knows when one of the lingering apparent errors will suddenly clear up as things are discovered.
The method I observed raf and his fellow posters were using on that thread was one of looking for errors, desiring to find errors, brainstorming with others to find errors, and halting the research rather quickly when one is "found." For any method SOME fundamental assumptions and desires and attitudes must be employed. I found this method repugnant and that it operates at cross purposes with all the 27 years of reconciled apparent errors i had seen, as well as the things God had worked for me that I briefly mentioned. For these reasons I disengaged from their thread.
The time it takes for me to reconcile an apparent error is not important to me. For Raf and his researchers, the finding of one of their cherished "actual errors" was relatively quick. I think some of them are under the illusion that timing is everything here, and that if I don't find the reconciliation quickly, then I must have failed. I am patient, though, and am willing to bet my life that all the reconciliations will be found.
I have posted volumes here on some of the tools that are important if a researcher wants to fully explore Dr's writings, instead of merely find apparent errors. Let me know if your are as curious to know them and we can discuss them.
You wrote: "Your last long post proves to me you have shut off the crtical (ability to judge for one's self) part of your brain and have succumbed to a demonic thought that somehow the same scripture that Jesus said was not to be added to or subtracted from has been altered by God through vpw."
Many of us OLGs at one time did pretty much accept Dr's teachings as from God. For us it IS possible to accept them as such again, especially if we read them instead of accepting the testimony of others who are not reading them and grinding an axe against Dr.
It's cheap and easy to cite devil spirits as what's behind a debate opponent if you don't have a valid argument against him.
If you really can sniff out a spirit like that, surely you can spot the exact error, too. I noticed you didn't do that, so it's pretty easy to conclude you can't spot my error, and resorted to the cheap way. It sounds to me that it's YOU who have shut down critical thinking abilities.
I know that devil spirits are real, but they are a cheap way of running away from an debate. We came from an abusive TWI system where this technique was used all the time. I suggest you don't utilize such abusive methods of citing devils in someone's arguments if you want to avoid duplicating the abuses that ran rampant in TWI.
If someone has a devil influencing them, and God tells you that this is the case, He does so for you to help that person. To use the devil excuse to merely win a few points in a debate makes a mockery of God's love in setting up the manifestations of HOLY spirit that are mainly there for helping others.
***
You wrote: "When you got mad at him, that was good. He needed to be confronted in thought and in person. We can't just accept everything he said as god-breathed. Heck, his shtick wouldn't let him do that."
Have you seriously thought through the accounts in the Old testament where God got his revelation through to sinful men IN SPITE of their sin? Are you aware of such accounts?
Due to 27 years of experiences, and due to a few things that God has worked in my life, I start out assuming that there are no errors, and then look for ways to reconcile the apparent ones that sometimes pop up.
Mike, how do you reconcile VPW's apparent error in PFAL, when he said there was no word "lama" in aramaic?
Would you state for the record now that there is a word lama in aramaic?
if so, how does that fit with VPW's teaching?
personally, I don't and can't believe that Jesus asked God "why has thou forsaken me"? Doesn't make sense with the rest of scripture, and VPW's teaching makes a great point when he asked, "would YOU abandon YOUR DYING SON?" who would? So I tend to agree with Lamsa anyway because his translation agrees more with scripture and logic.
But, there is a word lama in aramaic, isn't there?
Step 2 - Don't rely on the film class; it's only the introduction to the books.
Step 3 - On PFAL pages 154, 155 it doesn't read as you put it.
On those pages it reads (with my ALL-CAPS) "...there is no Aramaic word LIKE the word lama."
Step 4 - Ponder the difference between "there is no Aramaic word..." and "there is no Aramaic word LIKE..." If this is a hi priority issue to settle fast, look at all the other places that Dr uses the word "like." I've done a little of this, and there are a few very interesting clues to be found there.
Step 5 - If the answer doesn't come fast, be patient.
That's as far as I've gotten with that so far. I feel it's better to bet my life on Dr getting God's revelation into written form in PFAL than betting my life that I can slog my way through the thicket of theology with my own sense knowledge and end up with anything substantial.
The bet I made is based on 27 years of experiences, senses and spiritual.
The bet I avoid is based on seeing the 2000 year failure of churchianity.
The "church" has failed to put a dent in the adversary's kingdom. If anything they've helped him.
I don't have all the answers... yet. But I do believe I already have the safest bet, and the best adventure in learning.
This kind of thing happens all the time. No one has a total handle on anything, yet people bet their lives all the time in spite of plenty of unknowns. People do this every time they sail through a green light, betting their life the other guy has red and the electronics works. If I had to wait for all kinks to be straightened out before I made a move I'd be frozen in position.
I once heard Dr read the riot act at a staff meeting to an editor of the way magazine for all the typos that were in the previous edition. He extracted a confession from him that the next issue would be perfect. But I ALSO heard Dr say (maybe the same staff meeting) that if the Way International waited for a totally perfect piece of work to be produced we'd be waiting forever to ship anything.
Maybe there was a one word typo in that section of PFAL. He does say it like that in the film, but there could have been a correction that got lost. Have you ever noticed that the word "manifestation" is mis-spelled three times toward the end of that book? We were taught that there could be errors in proofreading and in printing.
I do know that Dr was so much on the move that he never watched but a half hour of the film class after it came back from the processing lab. He was almost immediately off to Haight-Asbury right then. He never saw the whole film class until the weeks prior to PFAL '77 some ten years after it was made. There were many times in his ministry when he didn't have the time or resources to proof every page. Toward the end he did, though. I know a guy that was one of over a hundred proof readers of JCPS.
There can be tiny glitches in even the books, but nothing that trips up those who place their trust in them. Actual Glitches (AGs) don't bother me because of their small nature. Most AGs were noticed by Dr's proofreader and fixed. One involving a technical subject like the Aramaic had far fewer proofreaders available, especially in the early years.
One or two AGs is all that an unbelieving grad needs to reject PFAL, and maybe that's why some were never fixed. God could have given Dr revelation that those three mis-spellings of "manifestation" are in there, but didn't. I've seen that God DOES give those who want to not believe a paved path away from His presence.
I also keep in mind that there MAY have been a bigger reason than an excuse path for those three times you can find "manifestion" in there where we would expect to find "manifestation." In the margins of my books I mark these kinds of things by writing "?typo?" there with two question marks to remind me that maybe it's on purpose.
There may be a reason why the PFAL book says: "...there is no Aramaic word LIKE the word lama." That's why I continue to ponder it.
We were taught that the original revelation from God was perfect. We were taught that as soon as there was a copy made we no longer had the original, and that error could creep in. We were taught to "limp" along with a far more flawed physical copy (and translation and version) of the originals and how to roll with those punches.
The tiny punches we must endure in our books won't hurt us. We're far closer to Dr's original revelation with our PFAL books than we are to Paul's revelation with any fragments, critical Greek texts, translations, and versions and all the middle men they entail. There are very few middlemen between our PFAL books and Dr's revelation than the vast number of middleman between us and Paul's revelation.
The alternative to my M.O. is to dump PFAL, but then to turn to WHAT to take it's place? Something with far worse than a few simple AGs? Like trust in some church? Or like trust in my own ability to search and hunt down better truths? Or like become agnostic or athiest? Not for me. No thanks.
If you want proof of perfection first you'll never get it... with ANYTHING.
The tiny punches we must endure in our books won't hurt us. We're far closer to Dr's original revelation with our PFAL books than we are to Paul's revelation with any fragments, critical Greek texts, translations, and versions and all the middle men they entail. There are very few middlemen between our PFAL books and Dr's revelation than the vast number of middleman between us and Paul's revelation.
The alternative to my M.O. is to dump PFAL, but then to turn to WHAT to take it's place? Something with far worse than a few simple AGs? Like trust in some church? Or like trust in my own ability to search and hunt down better truths? Or like become agnostic or athiest? Not for me. No thanks. ...SNIP...
Mike...at this stage of life, I would far rather struggle with the fragments, snippets, etc. than go back to somebody's hash of somebody else's thoughts about their understanding of said fragments and snippets. I think any objective third party would see far more depth and merit in the writings of Paul than of Victor Paul. And rehashing Norman Vincent Peale and Albert Cliffe and calling that a re-issuing of God's Word...well, I would not want to answer to Him for that kind of swill.
IE, Mike --- you can have your little sect all you want ... but the vast majority don't need or want the self-styled "research" of piffle. That is my bet and I really don't consider your judgement to be any validation or lack thereof....
The "church" has failed to put a dent in the adversary's kingdom. If anything they've helped him.
and your sure of this because????
the church or the Church...are you lumping every soul ever in a church togethere, are you calling the billions who have seen God work over the centuries all liars ..... Really you have an awful lot of audacity.
Ive stayed out of this thread, but have read each posting....but what you said calls God a liar and an illusion....
puuuuleeessse ...not my God...he is WAY biggger than the way ministry!
Yes, I'm sure. No one has done ALL the things that Jesus Christ did and greater. People still get sick and die. Confusion reigns in the churches and that's why there are so many. God most certainly IS bigger than TWi or any other ministry. But God's Word is as much God as God is God. That's why Jesus is Lord, because he is the Word made flesh.
***
alfakat,
I would agree with you IF it were the case that Dr didn't get an abundance of revelations. If he DID get revelation, then your method would be folly. I bet he got those revelations based on a long cool assesment, 27 years worth. Most people here placed their bet he did NOT get those revelations very shortly after their dandruff was shaken up. I saw here in SD, in 1987, HUNDREDS of grads make up their minds as whether to stay or not, or which splinter to sign up with, after NO shopping around and in a very small span of days.
Mike, I realize that you think your experience is unique...and to the extent that we *ALL* are unique, what you think is so. BUT to think that many...most?, have not taken the time necessary in their OWN UNIQUE situation is your own ego and bluster talking...
you are certainly entitled to your thinking process and conclusions thereof...but to throw your weight around as you have the entire time you have been on this board and think that *your* beliefs, based on your conclusions are the MOST, BEST, LONGEST time tested, yada, yada, yada...that is where you are out to lunch, in the opinion of many, if not most, here...
and you seem completely opaque and obtuse to that fact. QED
Here in SD I shopped arond for 11 years. I crossed all the boundary lines that were set up by the quick decisions of nearly every else in the county.
I only saw ONE other grad at those meetings crossing the lines like me. All the CES people stayed exclusively within CES. All the TWI people stayed exclusively within TWI. All the Geer people stayed exclusively within the Geer group.
I only saw this one other grad cross all those bondary lines like me, and for as long as I did, and he now attends the same fellowship I do, and he believes in PFAL just like me.
Out of all the grads in SD county I KNOW that only two shopped around for a substantial amount of time.
I'll admit you may be right, and that other counties may have had their sliver of a percentage of careful shoppers also. But I wouldn't bet on it.
so, if folks did not do *exactly* as you did, what ever they did do; simply does not measure up to what *YOU* did...hmmmmmm
Mike -- why can you NOT honestly admit when you DON'T KNOW???? I will guaran-damn-tee you that you do not have a clue as to what most people, say here on GSC, have or have not done. Why not be honest enough to admit that?? Cuz it don't bolster your case, maybe???
I will tell you this, Mike... I did what I needed to do to investigate what is, what ain't and what's what. I imagine others on here can say the same...BUT ya see, I Don't Speak for Them --- And Neither Do You....
I spent a lot of time talking to a lot of others before coming here... 16 YEARS to be approximately exact. :D-->
I asked a large sample of well over a hundred people, even two hundred, what they knew, when they decided, how they decided, etc. You would have been one of them had you responded to my e-mails to you in 1999 or 2000.
Maybe you didn't know that.
Being childless and self employed I spent tons of time polling people and discussing these things in those many years before I came here and with the harsh findings I've reported. Once here, I again found that few had thought many things through very deeply.
Most decisions were based on emotion, rumor, peer pressure, fears, tradition, anecdotal happenstance, and whatever their favorite leader did.
Are there exceptions? Sure, but I'll bet not too many and not too intense.
yes, I am *SURE* noone else could possibly have done as much as you did, in the manner you did, with perspicuity you did, yada, yada, yada........
You received no such responses from me after your series of emails -- I did not know you from Adam and do not make a habit of telling what I thought, found and concluded to someone who contacted me by email. So in my case, as I said, YOU do not know...
And you *KNOW* what most here had done...HOW??? by some bull.... talk on some discussion board?? PUH-leeeze! to quote Ghostbusters, "You are a poor scientist, Dr.(Mike) Venkman!"...
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
def59
Mike
Your last long post proves to me you have shut off the crtical (ability to judge for one's self) part of your brain and have succumbed to a demonic thought that somehow the same scripture that Jesus said was not to be added to or subtracted from has been altered by God through vpw.
When you got mad at him, that was good. He needed to be confronted in thought and in person. We can't just accept everything he said as god-breathed. Heck, his shtick wouldn't let him do that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
You wrote: "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."
You are operating on the idea that there is some common, singular, official, authoritative definition of words that Dr might be right with or wrong with. There is not.
Words have slightly different meanings to different people. When a dictionary is made, the editors try to corral all these differing usages into a smaller set of MOST often used definitions. They might like to get it down to only one usage in this attempt, but almost all words resist this constraint. Almost all words have SEVERAL definitions in any large dictionary. A few years pass and the population wrenches the usage of a word in a new direction and the editors console themselves in that they have job security.
That said, remember how were taught that God uses the MAN'S vocabulary to covey His revelation. We were not taught that God uses the "official" definition of the words, but He uses that one man's vocabulary, that one man's own definitions of words.
So, if it were the case that Dr had a "wrong" definition of the word "technical" God would bow to Dr's definition to impart His revelation. I too bow to it, and I had no trouble understanding that Dr was talking about the commonly observed patterns of human behavior we see everyday.
I bow to people's idiosyncratic use of words all the time, and so do you. It's the only way we can communicate with each other. I can see the word "technique" is the root of "technicality" so commonly practiced techniques is an easy thing to see in Dr's intended use of that word. (Besides, I looked it up in my dictionary, and that was one of the official
:D--> uses.)
***
And, TheEvan, just in case you think I'm re-writing here, or making it up as I go (like I've often been accused of) I've posted this same thing here before about individualistic use of words departing from the official dictionary. Besides, just like there's no official Bible version, there's no official dictionary, outside some institution officially adopting one as it's own standard.
This came up on the "Masters..." thread a year ago when Mandii objected to the meaning of the word "master" as she was used to thinking of it (((She's doing well, by the way. I just talked with her yesterday.)))
It also came up nearly two years ago. This individualistic use of words is the reason I did that thread on "Why Does A Mirror Reverse Left and Right But Not Up and Down?" at http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?q=Y&a=tpc...=4936053912&p=1
On that thread I showed how there are three vastly differing definitions out there for the word "reverse" and how hardly anyone is aware of this fact for various reasons. Because people have a tendency of latching on THEIR own definition and NOT bowing to other uses of the word reverse the riddle is a real stumper and has been for 3000 years.
In this case it's the hidden or elusive nature of two of the definitions that induce people to resist bowing. I've seen heated arguments on this riddle where people latch on so hard onto their own definition that they get angry at the other person who also does not see or yield.
In other arguments it's often the case that two people fight in a debate over some concepts due to definition differences, and out of stubbornness or ignorance of the other definition no one yields. If one is smart enough to finaly see that the argument is a mere differing over definitions, and yields to the other's definition, the argument suddenly ceases. This yielding or bowing to definitions is common in enlightened people. God too.
I posted long ago here that as a child in the 1950's I remember our anti-Beatnik English teacher trying to eradicate the word "ain't" and we kids would tease Miss Crabtree by saying within earshot: "'Ain't' ain't a word because it ain't in the dictionary!" We would squeal with delight at such a grammatical rebellion. WE KIDS knew that ain't was a real word, and the "official" dictionary be damned. We knew it was real because we USED IT. This was before the first ever slang dictionary came out. I remember slang dictionaries being a big deal when they appeared. Now they're common. Now even my spell checker has "ain't" in it.
***
In summary, Dr did not teach it was right for the king to help himself to any woman he wanted. Nor was Dr wrong in writing that way he did to document the commonly known practice of the king helping himself to whichever women he wanted. We are free to read error into it, but I will refrain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
While it is true that words have definitions that are sometimes flexible to an extent, it seems that if what you say is true, Wierwille flexed the meaning pretty far.
Maybe God shouldn't have bowed so much. Maybe then somebody other than you would have understood what "Doctor" *gag* really meant, since he was apparently incapable of expressing himself clearly in such an "important revelation".Keep in mind that Wierwille made the point that the David's sin was killing off Uriah, not the adultery with Bathsheba. David was sinning because of his having sexual relations with Bathsheba because the torah said so. Wierwille brought up his view that "technically" all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king to illustrate how the sexual relations between David & Bathsheba were not a sin. If he was referring merely to custom, or prevailing "devilish" mentality, how would that make their act not sinful?
Ya? We're talking about the word technically, not technicality. Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Guffaw!!!
Mike, you owe me for my drycleaning bill, and for cleaning coffee off of my monitor!
Idiosyncratic, indeed!
You just went and proved my point about arguing with half-wits!
Oakspear, the phrase "pearls before swine" comes to mind. Of course, I do realize that you're tying half your brain behind your back just to attempt to level the playing field. But still . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Holy God! IDOLATRY ALERT! IDOLATRY ALERT! AWOOOGA! AWOOOGA! AWOOGA!
He made the earth
move
under his feet
He brought religion tumblin down (tum-bul-ing down)
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Mike:
"Galen,
Say the word and I'm gone!"
LOL LOL LOL
You smoking crack or what?
I love this.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Mike...you are beyond reason. I feel compelled to break the bad news to you...you are insane.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I now have this picture in my mind of God bowing down to Smikeol and saying:
Mikey, whatever your 'recreational drug' is, get off of it now, before you get yourself seriously *busted*.
:P-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Mike, I quoted from 3 different materials, not counting Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life. Interestingly, Ruben Archer Torrey, who was 1st
Dean of Academics and later 2nd President of Dwight Moody Bible Institute taught Wednesday
crucifixation and Saturday Ressurrection back in
late 1870's. You spoke of Orientalisms by Pillai
and Lamsa,not counting Errico, Charles Freeman,
Howaed Voss, and Victor Matthews, plus Ralph
Gower(who revised Fred Wight). Also, you forgot
Bullinger, Kenyon, Smith Wigglesworth, Peale,
Schuller, Derek Prince, Lester Sumrall, Albert
Cliffe, Albert Benjamin Simpson, E.Stanley Jones
Howard Carter, Hagin, Copeland, Jerome Edwin
Stiles, Brian George Leonard, Mosley,etc. At least John Brown shows more respect to me, although I do disagree with him, but I respect
what he believes. Yet, you pout, whine and cry
acting like a spoiled brat if I challenge you to think for yourself. Maybe Wierwille should have smacked your face and ex-communicated you for heresy and for not living a Christ-like
attitude.If Jesus Christ is not God, then neither was Wierwille. Check out Karl Kahler's book. Also Did you know that Ernst Wierwille was
an alcoholic and beat both Emma and all the children. That's why young Victor Paul went into the woods, to escape his father's beating,
not because he was a modern Francis of Assisi
preaching to the trees and animals. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but didn't VPW say that the love of God was "tough love". Gang ,sorry for straying from the topic, but I don't take kindly to fools. TLB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I'm too tired right now to read all of these pages... but way back on page one or two Mike said:
Mike... maybe because they are filled with LOVE AND KINDNESS.... you remember those concepts don't you? you don't need a class for them... just a desire...Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
OK -- That is what I said, and here is how you resonded:
You missed ENTIRELY what I was saying. Certainly that phrase *magnifies God*, but you know what??? It (as interpretation of tongues) is totally contradictory to what took place in Acts, the first time SIT, and IOT took place.
My question to you was -- If docvic was so *big* on first usage in the bible as being the way it was to follow in the rest of the book, why did he teach something that goes contradictory to the first usage of SIT, and IOT??
Prophecy is a message from God, and tongues is a message for God. As I said -- the *my children* intro to an interpretation doesn't fit into the message for God *scheme of things*, that was evident in Acts -- and in it's first usage.
Now --- How did Doc miss that, and still propound *first usage supremecy*??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Oh -- (ps) -- I forgot to add IF DOC WAS SO RIGHT??
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
TheEvan,
You wrote a few days ago: "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."
Contrary to Raf's answer to your question, yes. I spent some time on Raf's thread in spite of my objections to their methods and attitudes for working on those apparent errors. I worked a little with them on the David issue, I think. It was a while ago. I saw that in order for me to deal with what they had there I would be constantly derailing their chosen path. They wanted to find error; I wanted to see past the illusion of errors. I've since then dealt with a few issues on other threads.
I have posted a lot of the great differences in the two methods, and twice recently. Each method is fundamentally different. Due to 27 years of experiences, and due to a few things that God has worked in my life, I start out assuming that there are no errors, and then look for ways to reconcile the apparent ones that sometimes pop up.
I choose this method because of the extreme amount of confidence I have built up over the years that the PFAL writings are of God. It's exactly analogous to the method Dr taught us i the class for dealing with the apparent errors in the versions of the Bible we have available to us today, but with a few differences.
Another method, the one that I used to examine PFAL for those 27 years, involves taking a look at the writings without the assumption that they are perfect, and letting the chips fall where they may as things are worked. Most of the items I looked at those 27 years eventually straighten out and I concluded that they were only apparent errors. A few lingered. One of the problems with this method is that one never knows when one of the lingering apparent errors will suddenly clear up as things are discovered.
The method I observed raf and his fellow posters were using on that thread was one of looking for errors, desiring to find errors, brainstorming with others to find errors, and halting the research rather quickly when one is "found." For any method SOME fundamental assumptions and desires and attitudes must be employed. I found this method repugnant and that it operates at cross purposes with all the 27 years of reconciled apparent errors i had seen, as well as the things God had worked for me that I briefly mentioned. For these reasons I disengaged from their thread.
The time it takes for me to reconcile an apparent error is not important to me. For Raf and his researchers, the finding of one of their cherished "actual errors" was relatively quick. I think some of them are under the illusion that timing is everything here, and that if I don't find the reconciliation quickly, then I must have failed. I am patient, though, and am willing to bet my life that all the reconciliations will be found.
I have posted volumes here on some of the tools that are important if a researcher wants to fully explore Dr's writings, instead of merely find apparent errors. Let me know if your are as curious to know them and we can discuss them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
You wrote: "Your last long post proves to me you have shut off the crtical (ability to judge for one's self) part of your brain and have succumbed to a demonic thought that somehow the same scripture that Jesus said was not to be added to or subtracted from has been altered by God through vpw."
Many of us OLGs at one time did pretty much accept Dr's teachings as from God. For us it IS possible to accept them as such again, especially if we read them instead of accepting the testimony of others who are not reading them and grinding an axe against Dr.
It's cheap and easy to cite devil spirits as what's behind a debate opponent if you don't have a valid argument against him.
If you really can sniff out a spirit like that, surely you can spot the exact error, too. I noticed you didn't do that, so it's pretty easy to conclude you can't spot my error, and resorted to the cheap way. It sounds to me that it's YOU who have shut down critical thinking abilities.
I know that devil spirits are real, but they are a cheap way of running away from an debate. We came from an abusive TWI system where this technique was used all the time. I suggest you don't utilize such abusive methods of citing devils in someone's arguments if you want to avoid duplicating the abuses that ran rampant in TWI.
If someone has a devil influencing them, and God tells you that this is the case, He does so for you to help that person. To use the devil excuse to merely win a few points in a debate makes a mockery of God's love in setting up the manifestations of HOLY spirit that are mainly there for helping others.
***
You wrote: "When you got mad at him, that was good. He needed to be confronted in thought and in person. We can't just accept everything he said as god-breathed. Heck, his shtick wouldn't let him do that."
Have you seriously thought through the accounts in the Old testament where God got his revelation through to sinful men IN SPITE of their sin? Are you aware of such accounts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Mike, how do you reconcile VPW's apparent error in PFAL, when he said there was no word "lama" in aramaic?
Would you state for the record now that there is a word lama in aramaic?
if so, how does that fit with VPW's teaching?
personally, I don't and can't believe that Jesus asked God "why has thou forsaken me"? Doesn't make sense with the rest of scripture, and VPW's teaching makes a great point when he asked, "would YOU abandon YOUR DYING SON?" who would? So I tend to agree with Lamsa anyway because his translation agrees more with scripture and logic.
But, there is a word lama in aramaic, isn't there?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
oldiesman,
Step 1 - Don't rely on memory.
Step 2 - Don't rely on the film class; it's only the introduction to the books.
Step 3 - On PFAL pages 154, 155 it doesn't read as you put it.
On those pages it reads (with my ALL-CAPS) "...there is no Aramaic word LIKE the word lama."
Step 4 - Ponder the difference between "there is no Aramaic word..." and "there is no Aramaic word LIKE..." If this is a hi priority issue to settle fast, look at all the other places that Dr uses the word "like." I've done a little of this, and there are a few very interesting clues to be found there.
Step 5 - If the answer doesn't come fast, be patient.
That's as far as I've gotten with that so far. I feel it's better to bet my life on Dr getting God's revelation into written form in PFAL than betting my life that I can slog my way through the thicket of theology with my own sense knowledge and end up with anything substantial.
The bet I made is based on 27 years of experiences, senses and spiritual.
The bet I avoid is based on seeing the 2000 year failure of churchianity.
The "church" has failed to put a dent in the adversary's kingdom. If anything they've helped him.
I don't have all the answers... yet. But I do believe I already have the safest bet, and the best adventure in learning.
This kind of thing happens all the time. No one has a total handle on anything, yet people bet their lives all the time in spite of plenty of unknowns. People do this every time they sail through a green light, betting their life the other guy has red and the electronics works. If I had to wait for all kinks to be straightened out before I made a move I'd be frozen in position.
I once heard Dr read the riot act at a staff meeting to an editor of the way magazine for all the typos that were in the previous edition. He extracted a confession from him that the next issue would be perfect. But I ALSO heard Dr say (maybe the same staff meeting) that if the Way International waited for a totally perfect piece of work to be produced we'd be waiting forever to ship anything.
Maybe there was a one word typo in that section of PFAL. He does say it like that in the film, but there could have been a correction that got lost. Have you ever noticed that the word "manifestation" is mis-spelled three times toward the end of that book? We were taught that there could be errors in proofreading and in printing.
I do know that Dr was so much on the move that he never watched but a half hour of the film class after it came back from the processing lab. He was almost immediately off to Haight-Asbury right then. He never saw the whole film class until the weeks prior to PFAL '77 some ten years after it was made. There were many times in his ministry when he didn't have the time or resources to proof every page. Toward the end he did, though. I know a guy that was one of over a hundred proof readers of JCPS.
There can be tiny glitches in even the books, but nothing that trips up those who place their trust in them. Actual Glitches (AGs) don't bother me because of their small nature. Most AGs were noticed by Dr's proofreader and fixed. One involving a technical subject like the Aramaic had far fewer proofreaders available, especially in the early years.
One or two AGs is all that an unbelieving grad needs to reject PFAL, and maybe that's why some were never fixed. God could have given Dr revelation that those three mis-spellings of "manifestation" are in there, but didn't. I've seen that God DOES give those who want to not believe a paved path away from His presence.
I also keep in mind that there MAY have been a bigger reason than an excuse path for those three times you can find "manifestion" in there where we would expect to find "manifestation." In the margins of my books I mark these kinds of things by writing "?typo?" there with two question marks to remind me that maybe it's on purpose.
There may be a reason why the PFAL book says: "...there is no Aramaic word LIKE the word lama." That's why I continue to ponder it.
We were taught that the original revelation from God was perfect. We were taught that as soon as there was a copy made we no longer had the original, and that error could creep in. We were taught to "limp" along with a far more flawed physical copy (and translation and version) of the originals and how to roll with those punches.
The tiny punches we must endure in our books won't hurt us. We're far closer to Dr's original revelation with our PFAL books than we are to Paul's revelation with any fragments, critical Greek texts, translations, and versions and all the middle men they entail. There are very few middlemen between our PFAL books and Dr's revelation than the vast number of middleman between us and Paul's revelation.
The alternative to my M.O. is to dump PFAL, but then to turn to WHAT to take it's place? Something with far worse than a few simple AGs? Like trust in some church? Or like trust in my own ability to search and hunt down better truths? Or like become agnostic or athiest? Not for me. No thanks.
If you want proof of perfection first you'll never get it... with ANYTHING.
Place your bets. I've placed mine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
Mike...at this stage of life, I would far rather struggle with the fragments, snippets, etc. than go back to somebody's hash of somebody else's thoughts about their understanding of said fragments and snippets. I think any objective third party would see far more depth and merit in the writings of Paul than of Victor Paul. And rehashing Norman Vincent Peale and Albert Cliffe and calling that a re-issuing of God's Word...well, I would not want to answer to Him for that kind of swill.
IE, Mike --- you can have your little sect all you want ... but the vast majority don't need or want the self-styled "research" of piffle. That is my bet and I really don't consider your judgement to be any validation or lack thereof....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaddyHoundog
and your sure of this because????
the church or the Church...are you lumping every soul ever in a church togethere, are you calling the billions who have seen God work over the centuries all liars ..... Really you have an awful lot of audacity.
Ive stayed out of this thread, but have read each posting....but what you said calls God a liar and an illusion....
puuuuleeessse ...not my God...he is WAY biggger than the way ministry!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
DaddyHounddog,
Yes, I'm sure. No one has done ALL the things that Jesus Christ did and greater. People still get sick and die. Confusion reigns in the churches and that's why there are so many. God most certainly IS bigger than TWi or any other ministry. But God's Word is as much God as God is God. That's why Jesus is Lord, because he is the Word made flesh.
***
alfakat,
I would agree with you IF it were the case that Dr didn't get an abundance of revelations. If he DID get revelation, then your method would be folly. I bet he got those revelations based on a long cool assesment, 27 years worth. Most people here placed their bet he did NOT get those revelations very shortly after their dandruff was shaken up. I saw here in SD, in 1987, HUNDREDS of grads make up their minds as whether to stay or not, or which splinter to sign up with, after NO shopping around and in a very small span of days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
Mike, I realize that you think your experience is unique...and to the extent that we *ALL* are unique, what you think is so. BUT to think that many...most?, have not taken the time necessary in their OWN UNIQUE situation is your own ego and bluster talking...
you are certainly entitled to your thinking process and conclusions thereof...but to throw your weight around as you have the entire time you have been on this board and think that *your* beliefs, based on your conclusions are the MOST, BEST, LONGEST time tested, yada, yada, yada...that is where you are out to lunch, in the opinion of many, if not most, here...
and you seem completely opaque and obtuse to that fact. QED
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
alfakat,
Here in SD I shopped arond for 11 years. I crossed all the boundary lines that were set up by the quick decisions of nearly every else in the county.
I only saw ONE other grad at those meetings crossing the lines like me. All the CES people stayed exclusively within CES. All the TWI people stayed exclusively within TWI. All the Geer people stayed exclusively within the Geer group.
I only saw this one other grad cross all those bondary lines like me, and for as long as I did, and he now attends the same fellowship I do, and he believes in PFAL just like me.
Out of all the grads in SD county I KNOW that only two shopped around for a substantial amount of time.
I'll admit you may be right, and that other counties may have had their sliver of a percentage of careful shoppers also. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
so, if folks did not do *exactly* as you did, what ever they did do; simply does not measure up to what *YOU* did...hmmmmmm
Mike -- why can you NOT honestly admit when you DON'T KNOW???? I will guaran-damn-tee you that you do not have a clue as to what most people, say here on GSC, have or have not done. Why not be honest enough to admit that?? Cuz it don't bolster your case, maybe???
I will tell you this, Mike... I did what I needed to do to investigate what is, what ain't and what's what. I imagine others on here can say the same...BUT ya see, I Don't Speak for Them --- And Neither Do You....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
alfakat,
I spent a lot of time talking to a lot of others before coming here... 16 YEARS to be approximately exact.
:D-->
I asked a large sample of well over a hundred people, even two hundred, what they knew, when they decided, how they decided, etc. You would have been one of them had you responded to my e-mails to you in 1999 or 2000.
Maybe you didn't know that.
Being childless and self employed I spent tons of time polling people and discussing these things in those many years before I came here and with the harsh findings I've reported. Once here, I again found that few had thought many things through very deeply.
Most decisions were based on emotion, rumor, peer pressure, fears, tradition, anecdotal happenstance, and whatever their favorite leader did.
Are there exceptions? Sure, but I'll bet not too many and not too intense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
yes, I am *SURE* noone else could possibly have done as much as you did, in the manner you did, with perspicuity you did, yada, yada, yada........
You received no such responses from me after your series of emails -- I did not know you from Adam and do not make a habit of telling what I thought, found and concluded to someone who contacted me by email. So in my case, as I said, YOU do not know...
And you *KNOW* what most here had done...HOW??? by some bull.... talk on some discussion board?? PUH-leeeze! to quote Ghostbusters, "You are a poor scientist, Dr.(Mike) Venkman!"...
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.