<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WordWolf:
I'm still hoping for a copy of, say, BG Leonard's definition of "word of knowledge".
I want to compare his with vpw's, and cg's also. If anyone has the wap version, I'd
like to see that also. What the heck.
Mainly, I want to see if the things I had issues with were added by vpw, or were lifted
from Leonard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The gift of the word of knowledge is the God-given ability to take unto yourself, at your own volition, a word of knowledge (that is, a revelation of facts concerning things about which it would be humanly impossible for you to know anything at all).
B.G. Leonard.
AHA!
I "KNEW" It!
The issues I had with vpw's definitions WERE due to him ripping off BG Leonard!
Rafael, since this scattered over several pages, please cut and paste this
in one coherent thread when you get a chance. (Pretty please.)
========================================
vpw's definition of word of knowledge:
"The manifestation of word of knowledge is your operation of the God-given
ability whereby you may receive from God
by His revealing unto you,
certain truths or facts about which it is impossible for you to know by the
five senses."
cg's definition of word of knowledge:
"The manifestation of word of knowledge is your operation of the God-given
ability whereby you may receive from God
by His revealing unto you,
certain truths or facts unknown to you by the five senses."
(Definition circa 1989.)
cg's defintion of word of knowledge:
"The manifestation of word of knowledge is your operation of the God-given
ability whereby you receive from God
by His revealing unto you,
certain truths or facts unknown to you by the five senses."
(Definition circa 1991.)
===========================
If anyone's got anyone else's definition,or another iteration of the ones we
mentioned, please add it-like the wap one.
Ok, here's what I had a bee in my bonnet about....
When I was preparing for the Advanced class, I studied the vpw definition.
I had an issue with the phraseology.
After all, the point of a defintion is supposed to be an accurate and coherent
explanation.
I said this is NOT what it was.
"About which it is impossible for you to know by the five senses?"
Why does it have to be impossible?
Elisha's in Dothan. A messenger gets sent to him. Someone tells him a messenger
was sent to him. He doesn't move. He says the guy's boss is hot on his tail.
Now, a lookout could have told him this-or a good look from his roof. That was
not "impossible", just impractical.
Ananias and Sapphira sell a house and give "all" (some) of the money for the
church, announcing they gave it all. Someone could easily have checked the
legal documents certifying the sale and shown the discrepancy between the amount
sold and the amount given. That's not "impossible", that's bookkeeping.
So, I said, why this compulsion to say it was "impossible"? Why constrain God
so? If something COULD have been known but wasn't, does God say "well, you
should have sent an investigator" and refuse to tell you something? Of course
not! God is not required to limit Himself in this fashion, nor is He demonstrated
to have done so at any time! So, I found that faulty.
When I arrived, cg had already seen the same point I did, and had made a change
to reflect that, which was already in print. (Good-I hate it when I can see
things as a new student better than the instructor-that's a bad sign.)
So, the problem I had was that vpw took Leonard's definition, changed the word
"gift" to "manifestation" (which I think is an improvement), added his stock
preface (which is of debatable value, since it is technically true, but
needlessly cumbersome), then made a few cosmetic changes to make his use of
Leonard's definition less obvious. In short, he did not "make the subject
his own." If he HAD done his own research from there, using Leonard as a
STARTING POINT ONLY, he would have had no difficulty making the same connection
I did when I FIRST saw the definitions. He literally took the definitions and
just made cosmetic changes, leaving their core the same.
Contrasting that with what cg did...
First of all, he made no pretensions he wasn't working from someone else's
definition, so he didn't need to make cosmetic changes.
Second of all, it's obvious he (or someone else-I'm figuring it was him)
sat down and examined the subjects, seeking to understand them. It was in
understanding their points he saw the need to make a change to correct the
definition, and so he did. Therefore, he didn't limit God in his definition.
I considered that change a definite improvement, without hearing a single word
from him on when or why it was made.
My opinion wasn't universal-I'd gotten into multiple debates back then as to
whether or not the previous definition was improved by the change or was
perfect in the form vpw gave it. (I think you can see what was the reason
others disagreed with me-it was "how dare you question vpw on anything" stuff.)
Now, cg went a step further and deleted a word in his next iteration, as you
can see. He deleted the word "may".
Another student explained this to me, and shared the reason he was given for
this change. He said he was told this was because the manifestations are not
a "maybe" thing-you don't "maybe" manifest. The student passed this along, and
made it clear, without discussion (we only had a moment) that he did not think
this was an improvement. Upon later reflection (first chance I had to mull it
over), I did not consider this an improvement. As I see it (and saw it then),
the manifestation is the ability to instantly commune with God Almighty,
and interface with Him. That ALWAYS works. You do NOT always get an answer,
and you do NOT always get an answer that directly responds to your question.
To suggest otherwise is to say that "word of knowledge" FORCES or REQUIRES God
to respond a certain way. He can respond any way He wants, and He can choose
NOT to respond. (I have experience with both.)
I'd already seen illustrations of this from other Christians long before I
considered the issue. They illustrated it with a cookie jar. Your operation of
"word of knowledge" is like reaching into Daddy's cookie jar. "Sometimes
they'res a cookie in it, sometimes there isn't."
(I'm sure LOTS of people know this example.)
Anyway, it seems VERY obvious to me that vpw "appropriated" (plagiarized)
BG Leonard's work on the subject.
Now, if I ever take Leonard's class, I've a conversation about impossibility
I'll want to have with the instructor/proctor/leader/semprini.
What was the big deal with definitions? It seemed like everything had to have some big, convoluted definition. (I think it was just a way to make things seem more important and relevant than they really were.)
I agree. And why memorize them, word for word? I think they were revered as highly as a few scriptures slapped on retemory cards..
What was the big deal with definitions? It seemed like everything had to have some big, convoluted definition. (I think it was just a way to make things seem more important and relevant than they really were.)
Well we learned in the Advanced Class that the devil was out to control the language people used. The examples presented were like the Communists and the Communist press would control what was allowed to be said. If you control language, then you control people.
It's kind of funny how TWI leaders taught so much about themselves and how they functioned, but put it in terms of the devil. Hiding in Satan's shadow!
There is a good reason to memorize certain things and use them as a standard. Look at the way WordWolf laid out the various definitions from different authors. They don't all have the same meaning. Once you get the correct meaning, writing it down and committing it to memory means you won't be swayed (or at least less likely to be).
There is a good reason to memorize certain things and use them as a standard. Look at the way WordWolf laid out the various definitions from different authors. They don't all have the same meaning. Once you get the correct meaning, writing it down and committing it to memory means you won't be swayed (or at least less likely to be).
Supposing any of them is correct.
I don't mind having a "working definition"- something kept as a rule of thumb.
All these definitions were treated as AUTHORITATIVE and DEFINITIVE
when they were no such thing.
They all had problems in SOMEONE'S opinion.
They can't all be right-but someone thinks each is somewhere,
and they're considering that DOCTRINE and basing life decisions on it.
That was true of the Keys to Walking By the Spirit, too, and everything else.
We're still seeing people quote vpw on things he didn't understand-
and acting as if it's mistrusting God to check if it was correct.
I have to admit, two TWI terms I did like were Retemory and Advance. I liked the idea of Retain in Memory and Advance in knowledge. It doesn't mean the terms weren't used to imply a difference between "us" and "Them" and used badly as a result to help control us.
Somehow, we've shifted from definitions to terminology, which is alright but, not really what I was thinking about when I started the thread.
Everything in life has to have some sort of definition, for sure. In TWI, though, what were passed off as definitions were really someone's (mostly VPW's) opinion.
"Well, Doctor'says word of knowledge is blah, blah, blah..."
"Well, Doctor'says word of knowledge is blah, blah, blah..." [/color]]
Those who still think like this are putting the "doctrine" of a man ahead of the "doctrine" of God (or Scriptures) And if; you recognized it and called them on it, they went for your throat.
Somehow, we've shifted from definitions to terminology, which is alright but, not really what I was thinking about when I started the thread.
Everything in life has to have some sort of definition, for sure. In TWI, though, what were passed off as definitions were really someone's (mostly VPW's) opinion.
"Well, Doctor'says word of knowledge is blah, blah, blah..."
As we saw in the thread,
our favorite plagiarist plagiarized some definitions,
then stuffed them full of 10-dollar words to make them sound more important,
with no real understanding of them.
So, he just paraphrased them more elaborately.
If he'd understood them, he would have tried to actually improve on them.
cg tried that. I think he succeeded a little and failed a little.
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I agree. And why memorize them, word for word? I think they were revered as highly as a few scriptures slapped on retemory cards..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yeah, retemory cards....
Got a problem opportunity?
Just throw a scripture at it and SIT. Everything will be just peachy.
SIGH
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Too many MADE-UP definitions, made up by people who didn't understand the English language that well.
(This practice is still defended by other people who don't understand the English language that well.)
There is no word "retemory" in the English language.
It is only used in twi and ex-twi circles.
It is a portmanteau of the words "memory" and "retain".
That, BTW, was written out in the syllabus of a class- Renewed Mind or DwtA, I forget which.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Well we learned in the Advanced Class that the devil was out to control the language people used. The examples presented were like the Communists and the Communist press would control what was allowed to be said. If you control language, then you control people.
It's kind of funny how TWI leaders taught so much about themselves and how they functioned, but put it in terms of the devil. Hiding in Satan's shadow!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
There is a good reason to memorize certain things and use them as a standard. Look at the way WordWolf laid out the various definitions from different authors. They don't all have the same meaning. Once you get the correct meaning, writing it down and committing it to memory means you won't be swayed (or at least less likely to be).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Supposing any of them is correct.
I don't mind having a "working definition"- something kept as a rule of thumb.
All these definitions were treated as AUTHORITATIVE and DEFINITIVE
when they were no such thing.
They all had problems in SOMEONE'S opinion.
They can't all be right-but someone thinks each is somewhere,
and they're considering that DOCTRINE and basing life decisions on it.
That was true of the Keys to Walking By the Spirit, too, and everything else.
We're still seeing people quote vpw on things he didn't understand-
and acting as if it's mistrusting God to check if it was correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keith
I have to admit, two TWI terms I did like were Retemory and Advance. I liked the idea of Retain in Memory and Advance in knowledge. It doesn't mean the terms weren't used to imply a difference between "us" and "Them" and used badly as a result to help control us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I preferred advancing to retreating, but I also didn't like the usage
of different terms primarily to establish a social boundary between
"us" and "them."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Somehow, we've shifted from definitions to terminology, which is alright but, not really what I was thinking about when I started the thread.
Everything in life has to have some sort of definition, for sure. In TWI, though, what were passed off as definitions were really someone's (mostly VPW's) opinion.
"Well, Doctor'says word of knowledge is blah, blah, blah..."
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Good point Waysider
Those who still think like this are putting the "doctrine" of a man ahead of the "doctrine" of God (or Scriptures) And if; you recognized it and called them on it, they went for your throat.
Edited by krysLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
of course I do
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
As we saw in the thread,
our favorite plagiarist plagiarized some definitions,
then stuffed them full of 10-dollar words to make them sound more important,
with no real understanding of them.
So, he just paraphrased them more elaborately.
If he'd understood them, he would have tried to actually improve on them.
cg tried that. I think he succeeded a little and failed a little.
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.