Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Power for Abundant Living Today™


OldSkool
 Share

Recommended Posts

I would be impressed if they sold the new class freely to anyone who would buy it, if we didn't have to attend a fellowship or whatever in order to take it. Buy it like you'd buy a book or a video or Netflix. Cultflix. Dumflix.

That would impress me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, T-Bone said:

in case anyone missed it - here's the trailer for Power For Abundant Living Today

 

Looks like they are just reading the book and too damn happy. Nothing "today" about it.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, waysider said:

The entire class is built on a false premise that is revealed in the first 20 seconds.

The Bible is not the revealed word and will of God. It's a collection of 66 ancient writings that have been cobbled together to promote a sense of literary agreement. It's filled with contradictions and errors. Any attempts to justify these imperfections are nothing more than linguistic sleight of hand.

Glad you brought that up…as I watched the trailer for PFALT, when it got to the part of a presenter repeating the same thing wierwille says in PFAL – I’m loosely quoting it here from memory and also emphasizing key pronouns: “God has a purpose for everything HE says in the Bible, where HE says it, why HE says it, how HE says it, to whom HE says it, when HE says it…”      I think PFAL presents a contradictory theory on how we got the Bible. 


Notice I capitalized and put in bold red all the pronouns “HE” that refer back to “God”. But later in the class wierwille explains holy men of God spake as they were MOVED by the Holy Spirit – wierwille states it doesn’t say “shoved around” which he further explained accounts for the different styles of writing in the 66 books of the Bible, meaning the writers used their own vocabulary, literary style, and cultural settings. However, that contradicts the idea in the above statement which attributes every word, literary style, and of course all historical, scientific, geographical, and worldview references to God. 


On another thread, I mentioned the four most popular theories of how the Bible was written   see  my post on 2nd wave of returning to PFAL regarding 4 major theories of inspiration   
Where I said:
 I’m of the opinion that the way one thinks the Bible was written will influence the way one interprets the Bible.

There ARE a FEW accounts in Scripture that indicate God communicated a word-for-word message – but assuming God is also the creator of the cosmos – with superlative attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.  - and the fact that we find historical errors as well as ancient and often erroneous concepts of physical sciences, life sciences, and Earth sciences rules out the dictation theory for me. Of course, that’s just my opinion – I could be wrong.  

I find myself leaning toward a mix of # 1 neo-orthodoxy and # 3 limited inspiration theory. Again - that’s just my opinion…I believe wierwille's theology would have been based on either  # 2 Dictation theory   or   # 4  Plenary verbal inspiration theory ...


Though these theories of how the Bible was written seem simple enough to describe – the impact of which one or more of these we choose may be profound to our understanding.
I think a student of the Bible should be AWARE of the ASSUMPTIONS they hold and WHY, when reading, interpreting, and applying Scripture.


End of quoting my old post


~ ~ ~ ~ 


My point is, you can’t have it both ways. If indeed “God has a purpose for everything HE says in the Bible, where HE says it, why HE says it, how HE says it, to whom HE says it, when HE says it” then he made a lot of mistakes and he’s not as smart as I thought he was…man what a let down! :yawn1:
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

. . .

 I’m of the opinion that the way one thinks the Bible was written will influence the way one interprets the Bible.

. . .

 

You're mentioning background information and perceptions one brings to what one is reading.

 

I had to take an elective where we read plays.  When it was my turn to read I was told I read like an engineer.  (well . . . duh . . .  sorry I ruined your play) . . . The instructor then explained HOW you read something is HOW you understand it.  Back at HQ it appeared to me to bother corps when the phrase was repeated.

However, I also remember the folks who are now in R&R once repeating phrases like: you are righteous now

and they would repeat:

YOU are righteous now

you ARE righteous now

you are RIGHTEOUS now

you are righteous NOW

Emphasizing any word in the same phrase can alter what is perceived from the phrase.  How it is read changes what is understood.

Scripture interprets interprets itself, right?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bolshevik said:

Emphasizing any word in the same phrase can alter what is perceived from the phrase.  How it is read changes what is understood.

Not to mention, some languages have different methods of emphasizing what is important. In Korean, for example, extra "helper words", commonly referred to as markers or postpositions, are added to help identify a particular word's grammatical function (subject, object, topic) in the context.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*I* should emphasize :biglaugh: that the corps seemed to be uncomfortable with the idea that interpretation is not set in stone, while at the same time utilizing the concept that interpretation can vary as a sales tool.  

 

PFAL conditions its students into a rigid framework . . . down the road a person can use rigid thinking that against another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that was a waste of 4-1/2 minutes of my life.  The only one who seemed remotely interesting to listen to was the black guy in the middle.  The others were so boring and - and where was the New?  the Today?  If I cast my mind back (which I don't care to), I reckon I could recite what they're going to say.  I thought they might put something more - titillating? - today-ish, in, to tempt people along.

And to start the bloody video with a clip of VPW... Yikes!  Needs to come with a special "health warning" !!!!!!!!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Glad you brought that up…as I watched the trailer for PFALT, when it got to the part of a presenter repeating the same thing wierwille says in PFAL – I’m loosely quoting it here from memory and also emphasizing key pronouns: “God has a purpose for everything HE says in the Bible, where HE says it, why HE says it, how HE says it, to whom HE says it, when HE says it…”      I think PFAL presents a contradictory theory on how we got the Bible. 


Notice I capitalized and put in bold red all the pronouns “HE” that refer back to “God”. But later in the class wierwille explains holy men of God spake as they were MOVED by the Holy Spirit – wierwille states it doesn’t say “shoved around” which he further explained accounts for the different styles of writing in the 66 books of the Bible, meaning the writers used their own vocabulary, literary style, and cultural settings. However, that contradicts the idea in the above statement which attributes every word, literary style, and of course all historical, scientific, geographical, and worldview references to God. 


On another thread, I mentioned the four most popular theories of how the Bible was written   see  my post on 2nd wave of returning to PFAL regarding 4 major theories of inspiration   
Where I said:
 I’m of the opinion that the way one thinks the Bible was written will influence the way one interprets the Bible.

There ARE a FEW accounts in Scripture that indicate God communicated a word-for-word message – but assuming God is also the creator of the cosmos – with superlative attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.  - and the fact that we find historical errors as well as ancient and often erroneous concepts of physical sciences, life sciences, and Earth sciences rules out the dictation theory for me. Of course, that’s just my opinion – I could be wrong.  

I find myself leaning toward a mix of # 1 neo-orthodoxy and # 3 limited inspiration theory. Again - that’s just my opinion…I believe wierwille's theology would have been based on either  # 2 Dictation theory   or   # 4  Plenary verbal inspiration theory ...


Though these theories of how the Bible was written seem simple enough to describe – the impact of which one or more of these we choose may be profound to our understanding.
I think a student of the Bible should be AWARE of the ASSUMPTIONS they hold and WHY, when reading, interpreting, and applying Scripture.


End of quoting my old post


~ ~ ~ ~ 


My point is, you can’t have it both ways. If indeed “God has a purpose for everything HE says in the Bible, where HE says it, why HE says it, how HE says it, to whom HE says it, when HE says it” then he made a lot of mistakes and he’s not as smart as I thought he was…man what a let down! :yawn1:
 

When I was in college, I took "Nature of Religion".  (It satisfied the distribution requirement, I was able to get in the class.) There, the class was largely about how all religions were the same and all religions were fake.   Considering how we began with Eliade, it was possible to teach the class with some leeway for believing SOMETHING was out there, that different experiences of the divine counted for something or at least MIGHT - but that's not the direction this teacher took. (Frankly, he conformed to the worst stereotypes mentioned in twi.)   

During the class, I noticed something which said a lot about the teacher's worldview.  When he covered things that might have multiple explanations, he did at least 2 things I found unusual.   One, he taught ALL the answers, and gave them all equal weight and said them as if each was THE answer and they weren't contradictory.  Two, he never seemed too concerned about actually finding out what was factually correct.   As in, "Why did these people say this? They meant..." with contradictory explanations different times and no concern that he contradicted the previous class.   His history was also sloppy but matched what he wanted to say.

Ever wonder about why gladiators waited for thumbs up or thumbs down before killing?  The historical truth is that they looked for a single signal-  the thumbs up or the thumb HIDDEN.  The thumb UP meant to stab the knife, to kill.  The thumb HIDDEN meant to refrain from stabbing, let him live.   My teacher taught that it was thumbs up or thumbs down, and that thumbs up originally meant to kill, and that it was an easier way to signal a nod from a distance, and that the nod was what was being conveyed.   (He was on a kick about the head and religious practices, and apparently everything was about the head and sky for about 5 minutes-  they everything was about the earth for another 5 minutes.)  

We got much the same thing in pfal.  vpw's explanations were sometimes all over the map and contradicted each other. This should have been  a sign he wasn't paying attention, that he was spitting back rote answers without understanding them- otherwise he would have noticed what contradicted.  So long as he got the money, he didn't really care when his explanations didn't make sense or contradicted.  As has been pointed out.... "God is Spirit, and GOD CAN ONLY GIVE WHAT HE IS" was right in pfal, and doesn't make one lick of sense.   "God gave manna. God is not manna."  His explanation sometimes said God could only give what He is, and sometimes said He could only communicate with spirit- which was STILL wrong because God communicates with flesh all the time, via the 5 senses or some other way. Ask Adam and Eve if they were still communicating with God after "they lost spirit."   The insistence that ALL of His communications with man had to have spirit slapped onto a man conditionally to receive a message from God, then it was taken away IMMEDIATELY was an odd rationalization that neither made sense on paper nor was backed up with verses.   (Prophets yes, Joe down the street for 4 minutes, no.)  

This was glaringly obvious in the Advanced class, with the writing on the wall.  The inability to understand the writing was "explained" by saying Nebuchadnezzar had spirit put on him and that's how he read writing that was only visible to spirit, and that's why the wise men didn't understand it.   FF Bruce had already explained what the problem was decades before, in a book sometimes carried in the twi bookstore!   vpw was a lazy student.    Bruce said that the words were perfectly visible, but, without the vowels, they either meant "weighed, numbered, divided" in one language, or "a dollar, a fiver and some change" in a different language. 

Anyway, wierwille's explanations contradicted each other or common sense because he didn't understand what he was passing along, and didn't really care as long as people went along with it.  For a conman, this is not a surprise. For an alleged minister, it's a disgrace.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bolshevik said:

You're mentioning background information and perceptions one brings to what one is reading.

 

I had to take an elective where we read plays.  When it was my turn to read I was told I read like an engineer.  (well . . . duh . . .  sorry I ruined your play) . . . The instructor then explained HOW you read something is HOW you understand it.  Back at HQ it appeared to me to bother corps when the phrase was repeated.

However, I also remember the folks who are now in R&R once repeating phrases like: you are righteous now

and they would repeat:

YOU are righteous now

you ARE righteous now

you are RIGHTEOUS now

you are righteous NOW

Emphasizing any word in the same phrase can alter what is perceived from the phrase.  How it is read changes what is understood.

Scripture interprets interprets itself, right?  

 

Lots of people know how punctuation alone can change a message.

 

"What's that in the road?  A head?"   "CUT!  The line is 'what's that in the road ahead?' "

"Let's eat Grandma!"  vs "Let's eat, Grandma!"   Punctuation saves lives.

This happens in all languages, some more easily than others. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WordWolf said:

Lots of people know how punctuation alone can change a message.

 

"What's that in the road?  A head?"   "CUT!  The line is 'what's that in the road ahead?' "

"Let's eat Grandma!"  vs "Let's eat, Grandma!"   Punctuation saves lives.

This happens in all languages, some more easily than others. 

 

 

:biglaugh:

 

Lesson 5: Shopping For Milk (and Eggs)? - David Hurley In Japan

 

 

Scripture, The Bible, is not *a* language.  "It interprets itself", though.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Bolshevik said:

You're mentioning background information and perceptions one brings to what one is reading...I had to take an elective where we read plays.  When it was my turn to read I was told I read like an engineer.  (well . . . duh . . .  sorry I ruined your play) . . . The instructor then explained HOW you read something is HOW you understand it.  Back at HQ it appeared to me to bother corps when the phrase was repeated.

Yeah Bolshevik, that makes a lot of sense…wierwille’s idea of how all Scripture is “God-breathed” or  God inspired and the alleged 1942 promise of God audibly telling wierwille He’d teach him the Word may have had at least two unintended consequences to followers: it belittled one’s cognitive skills and undervalued one’s own unique inspiration…On another thread I’ve expressed my frustration with trying to get one of my songs approved to play on the stage of the Rome City campus – but according to the assistant corps coordinator the lyrics to my song were not PFAL-enough…I thought it was a cool tune…I could dance to it…I’d give it an 85. :biglaugh:

Edited by T-Bone
I was inspired to edit this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Living Document Wikipedia Link

The Living Word Speaks?  Not the Dead Sea Scrolls Up?  Scripture Interprets It-self.

VPW treated the bible as a dead document.  Getting "back" to the original intent.  That was the whole promise.

 

Scripture interprets itself . . . that's why God had to explain it to VPW so he could teach it to others for a tiny fee and a lifetime commitment.  Cause someone has to explain how God had to explain that VPW had to explain that no explanation is necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Twinky said:

The only one who seemed remotely interesting to listen to was the black guy in the middle. 

Ironically, he was my first branch coordinator when I lived in NYC, he was in Kew Gardens out in Queens. Took my first foundational class, way of abundance and power in 96 with the first round of Craig's FNC. And here he is talking about his first foundational class...I think Im gonna go take the new PFAL!!! Or go feed my right arm to a pack of ravenous wolves...whichever comes first.

All kidding aside. That's Lynd0n $uml!n. Really cool guy. He is one of those people that I would to see break free from TWI. But he probably never will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, T-Bone said:

in case anyone missed it - here's the trailer for Power For Abundant Living Today

 

Well, that was lame. I would prefer to get yelled at by Craig --- at least that had some level of excitement to it.

 

It's kinda sad really. The folks running the way international these days really have no vision, no originality, no inspiration, all the can do is look to what used to work and try to emulate it somehow. I bet not a dang one of em at the director level have ever just simply asked the Lord what he needs them to do and how they can reach people. Nope...it's a dead church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WordWolf said:

When I was in college, I took "Nature of Religion".  (It satisfied the distribution requirement, I was able to get in the class.) There, the class was largely about how all religions were the same and all religions were fake.   Considering how we began with Eliade, it was possible to teach the class with some leeway for believing SOMETHING was out there, that different experiences of the divine counted for something or at least MIGHT - but that's not the direction this teacher took. (Frankly, he conformed to the worst stereotypes mentioned in twi.)   

During the class, I noticed something which said a lot about the teacher's worldview.  When he covered things that might have multiple explanations, he did at least 2 things I found unusual.   One, he taught ALL the answers, and gave them all equal weight and said them as if each was THE answer and they weren't contradictory.  Two, he never seemed too concerned about actually finding out what was factually correct.   As in, "Why did these people say this? They meant..." with contradictory explanations different times and no concern that he contradicted the previous class.   His history was also sloppy but matched what he wanted to say.

Ever wonder about why gladiators waited for thumbs up or thumbs down before killing?  The historical truth is that they looked for a single signal-  the thumbs up or the thumb HIDDEN.  The thumb UP meant to stab the knife, to kill.  The thumb HIDDEN meant to refrain from stabbing, let him live.   My teacher taught that it was thumbs up or thumbs down, and that thumbs up originally meant to kill, and that it was an easier way to signal a nod from a distance, and that the nod was what was being conveyed.   (He was on a kick about the head and religious practices, and apparently everything was about the head and sky for about 5 minutes-  they everything was about the earth for another 5 minutes.)  

We got much the same thing in pfal.  vpw's explanations were sometimes all over the map and contradicted each other. This should have been  a sign he wasn't paying attention, that he was spitting back rote answers without understanding them- otherwise he would have noticed what contradicted.  So long as he got the money, he didn't really care when his explanations didn't make sense or contradicted.  As has been pointed out.... "God is Spirit, and GOD CAN ONLY GIVE WHAT HE IS" was right in pfal, and doesn't make one lick of sense.   "God gave manna. God is not manna."  His explanation sometimes said God could only give what He is, and sometimes said He could only communicate with spirit- which was STILL wrong because God communicates with flesh all the time, via the 5 senses or some other way. Ask Adam and Eve if they were still communicating with God after "they lost spirit."   The insistence that ALL of His communications with man had to have spirit slapped onto a man conditionally to receive a message from God, then it was taken away IMMEDIATELY was an odd rationalization that neither made sense on paper nor was backed up with verses.   (Prophets yes, Joe down the street for 4 minutes, no.)  

This was glaringly obvious in the Advanced class, with the writing on the wall.  The inability to understand the writing was "explained" by saying Nebuchadnezzar had spirit put on him and that's how he read writing that was only visible to spirit, and that's why the wise men didn't understand it.   FF Bruce had already explained what the problem was decades before, in a book sometimes carried in the twi bookstore!   vpw was a lazy student.    Bruce said that the words were perfectly visible, but, without the vowels, they either meant "weighed, numbered, divided" in one language, or "a dollar, a fiver and some change" in a different language. 

Anyway, wierwille's explanations contradicted each other or common sense because he didn't understand what he was passing along, and didn't really care as long as people went along with it.  For a conman, this is not a surprise. For an alleged minister, it's a disgrace.

So much Frankfurtian bull$hit, so much word salad. The advanced class was truly advanced bull$hit and gourmet word salad. 

PFAL and vp's teachings were designed to persuade without regard for truth (BS) by systematically grinding down and exhausting to delirium the natural and spiritual sensibilities (word salad).

The PFALT trailer made me vomit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joke: 

“A panda walks into a cafe.  He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife annual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says, at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves.”

Book: Eats, Shoots & Leaves eBook by Lynne Truss - 9781101218297 | Rakuten Kobo

Available from various sources.  

Book description:  We all know the basics of punctuation. Or do we? A look at most neighborhood signage tells a different story. Through sloppy usage and low standards on the internet, in email, and now text messages, we have made proper punctuation an endangered species. In Eats, Shoots & Leaves, former editor Lynne Truss dares to say, in her delightfully urbane, witty, and very English way, that it is time to look at our commas and semicolons and see them as the wonderful and necessary things they are. This is a book for people who love punctuation and get upset when it is mishandled. From the invention of the question mark in the time of Charlemagne to George Orwell shunning the semicolon, this lively history makes a powerful case for the preservation of a system of printing conventions that is much too subtle to be mucked about with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only was VPW self-contradictory in what was taught in PFAL (which hopefully this latest class will have sorted out by now, unless they're still practising the same particular type of double-think), his grammar was absolutely terrible, he didn't understand the English language well at all (not even the US version of same).  So those folk here who want to nitpick about grammar had better start with him and his books - not with people here.

And not only were his English and his grammar poor.  His knowledge of the OT was poor, too.  That I find particularly surprising.  He did get a sort of divinity degree, which I think was sort of legitimate (unlike the papermill doctorate) but it's as if he'd never really read or deeply considered the OT apart from the bits he used to bolster his take on the NT.  I'd've thought that he needed to have read and studied part if not all of the OT at divinity school.  But perhaps not?

Without a decent knowledge of the OT, much of the NT is reduced in its richness.  There's a depth that comes from reading and understanding the OT and in all honesty, I didn't see that depth in VPW.  Not once I'd got into and studied the OT, thought about it looking backwards and forwards and in context of later NT knowledge.  Perhaps that's why he never taught much from the gospels?  Didn't understand even them?

I wonder if there is more depth in this new class?  Are there "teachers" who have actually read the OT?  Or are they just reciting VPW's words and least egregious errors, without engaging brain? 

Do I care enough to pay $xx to find out?  No, I would not pay even one cent.  Indeed, not sure I'd sit through their class even if they paid me!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Twinky said:

I wonder if there is more depth in this new class?  Are there "teachers" who have actually read the OT?  Or are they just reciting VPW's words and least egregious errors, without engaging brain? 

Short answer is none of the material is theirs besides illustrations, and no brains needed and it doesnt matter what anyone knows because it's all scripted in the first place.

Longer answer, with some context. Im gonna go out on a limb here...maybe a bad choice of words...since we might start talking about twig next...anywho...I have a very, very strong suspicion that, except for the teachers' personal illustrations, they are all reading from a teleprompter. There is simply no way that all of those guys are just up there teaching this class from memory. The class itself is just a polished up version of the old PFAL - same white wash process applied by way publications, etc. So they polish up PFAL once again. Then they develop the syllabus, then they pick a group of teachers (notable that one of them is Donna Martindale's sister, another Roger M!ttl3rs son, and another Bill Greens son....3 out of 4 from the preview riding that nepotism coat tail) can pull off some sort of charismatic presentation, at least to some level. And of course try to appeal to young people. That's thier survival mode appearantly - recruiting their kids into leadership.

The reason they use a board of teachers is straight from BakerHostetler, their attorneys....if you are a cult, and TWI definately is, then lose the central, charismatic, leadership figure. So they choose various and sundry teachers and keep the real leaders behind the scenes, the directors actually. Even cabinet level people, and I was one, have very very little actual authority and function more administratively than anything. So they are doing their best to appear to the public as not a cult...but behind the scenes are as culty as ever. Probably even more so since they are disingenious in their efforts.

Imagine if they actually spent all those years of attorney fees on helping people, or if over the past 22 years they had spent that time and effort actually ministering, yes - serving the needs people really have. But they are more interested in appearing legitimate. Does something truly legitimate need to prove that it is in fact legitimate?

Edited by OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Twinky said:

Joke: 

“A panda walks into a cafe.  He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife annual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says, at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves.”

Book: Eats, Shoots & Leaves eBook by Lynne Truss - 9781101218297 | Rakuten Kobo

Available from various sources.  

Book description:  We all know the basics of punctuation. Or do we? A look at most neighborhood signage tells a different story. Through sloppy usage and low standards on the internet, in email, and now text messages, we have made proper punctuation an endangered species. In Eats, Shoots & Leaves, former editor Lynne Truss dares to say, in her delightfully urbane, witty, and very English way, that it is time to look at our commas and semicolons and see them as the wonderful and necessary things they are. This is a book for people who love punctuation and get upset when it is mishandled. From the invention of the question mark in the time of Charlemagne to George Orwell shunning the semicolon, this lively history makes a powerful case for the preservation of a system of printing conventions that is much too subtle to be mucked about with.

That panda bear should have a gun.  Considering here in the US, we each have a right to bear arms.  But without their arms, how would they climb trees?  Self defense is critical to the bear population.

There's no argument about what that all means though.  Because thankfully, a living document like the Constitution interprets itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

we each have a right to bear arms. 

Wouldn't it be awesome to have bear arms? People would think twice before crossing you.

 

It's a grammar "thing".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have any of you wondered why modern society is so anti-woman? Could it be related to the origin stories in the bible? MEN of God wrote it. Eve was the villain? The entire society we live in revolves around a dogma that subtly demeans women as less than equal.

The more I think about it, the more I challenge the idea that the scriptures were inspired by God.

And I agree w/Twinky, though I only watched half that video. Those first two white guys were just speaking memorized words with a modicum of expression... but without genuine authenticity in their presentation... IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is an exact quote from the PFALT trailer featuring the first new presenter; after the quote The Intrepid Interpreter will provide an alternate translation:

So, in this class we’re going to teach you about spiritual knowledge so that you can tap into the resources of the power of God. So that you can live life as God intended you to live. Fully informed…fully equipped…ready for anything and equal to anything through him who infuses inner strength into you. So that you can live without fear. The greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is the revealed word and will of God. The word of God is the will of God.

 

The Intrepid Interpreter’s alternate translation of the above text:

1.    If you want to have godlike control, authority and influence over people and situations then you want Gnosticism.

2.    We’re assuming God planned for you to be a know-it-all megalomaniac, in other words

3.    A close-minded arrogant and domineering person best suited to manipulate others.

4.    By having a can-do attitude, believe you will succeed - as long as the cult-leader keeps blowing enough smoke up your a$$

5.    So that in false bravado you can run with scissors, damn the torpedoes and hope your cult-brethren-and-sistren  :rolleyes:  can always bail you out of trouble.

6.    The greatest Easter egg in The Way International today is that Power For Abundant Living Today is the same rotten egg as the old PFAL class.

7.    The words of PFAL are the last will and testament of a cult-leader.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Twinky said:

Joke: 

“A panda walks into a cafe.  He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife annual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says, at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves.”

Book: Eats, Shoots & Leaves eBook by Lynne Truss - 9781101218297 | Rakuten Kobo

Available from various sources.  

Book description:  We all know the basics of punctuation. Or do we? A look at most neighborhood signage tells a different story. Through sloppy usage and low standards on the internet, in email, and now text messages, we have made proper punctuation an endangered species. In Eats, Shoots & Leaves, former editor Lynne Truss dares to say, in her delightfully urbane, witty, and very English way, that it is time to look at our commas and semicolons and see them as the wonderful and necessary things they are. This is a book for people who love punctuation and get upset when it is mishandled. From the invention of the question mark in the time of Charlemagne to George Orwell shunning the semicolon, this lively history makes a powerful case for the preservation of a system of printing conventions that is much too subtle to be mucked about with.

Twinky, this is book is EXCELLENT!!  It's occupied space on my desk for years - right next to Strunk and White.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that the worst of vpw's laziness is still in twi, awaiting to trip up new people.

Among the many lies was that vpw-who studied how to preach, not how to translate nor even Church history- actually knew something about Bible translations.  vpw played to his strengths- how to plagiarize and how to deliver a sermon even when he neither understood the contents nor cared about them or the people (he knew how to fake sincerity.) 

So, supposedly, one of the things he came up with was a "literal translation according to usage" (A PARAPHRASE) of Philippians 4:13.  "I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Christ who infuses inner strength into me."  It makes a nifty motto, but it's not a translation of Philippians 4:13.   That's so egregious that geer- who was a virtual worshipper of vpw- didn't teach it that way after hearing vpw teach it that way.   It's also plagiarism. The Amplified Bible wasn't owned by most twi'ers=  who were told to use a KJV or possibly Lamsa's if they were examining things- but vpw obviously had a copy.

 

Philippians 4:13   " I can do all things [which He has called me to do] through Him who strengthens and empowers me [to fulfill His purpose—I am self-sufficient in Christ’s sufficiency; I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Him who infuses me with inner strength and confident peace.]

 

I would expect most of vpw's supposed "literal translations according to usage" came out of that book.  Frankly, as little as I trust paraphrase Bibles, at least their people had a scholarly background, so I'd probably trust them OVER vpw for the meaning of a verse.   (Not that they are guaranteed to have it, either.)

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...