I have been thinking of writing a TWI history, where the totally white-washing style of official TWI publications can be avoided.
At least three histories have already been written. They have totally avoided any style that could be called whitewashing. I'm thinking of Kahler, Skedgell and Edge. I'm hoping Rocky or Skyrider write one soon.
As you can see I spread the dim-wittedness out to the many posters of 15 years ago.
Again: Give respect and you will get it. Calling anyone dim-witted is inappropriate and make you look dimwitted for not accepting the fact that we all understand you from soup to nuts, but when we disagree you resort to insults and passive/agressive attacks on people. Stating that people don't get where you are coming from. I say emphatically: you don't get where any one of us is coming from because there is no honest and opne communication. I don't even think you actually read posts but skim over them until you find something to use as troll bait...basing that assumption on how you've stated you handled Undertow....reading it slowly...you said youve read 5% --- over 5 years that's 23.7 pages.
I have my own priorities to juggle... right this minute, on this thread, it is "the Bible interprets itself" is a good thing about PFAL.
9 hours ago, WordWolf said:
I also notice how Mike can see it that way- but when another thread has actual discussions that address how Charlene was correct and that the Bible does NOT interpret itself, that's when Mike "gets busy" again, and never DIRECTLY addresses anything that refutes his position.
I have my own priorities to juggle... right this minute, on this thread, it is "the Bible interprets itself" is a good thing about PFAL.
That’s actually a bad thing - because it’s a false claim - the Bible does NOT interpret itself . wierwille used that false claim to trick students into believing his interpretation of the Bible is the only correct interpretation.
No, not at all. But you don't really discuss topics honestly and openly and you know it.
I come here to discuss a limited number of topics, honestly and openly. I don't have time for everyone else's topics, but I try to include as much as I can. I do not attempt to talk about everything; it's just not humanly possible. Like everyone else, I must prioritize and accept what doesn't get done.
Replace topics with "points of view" and I think you are on to something. But I am sure, since there are multiple people all saying the same thing - that you don't discuss topics open and honestly -, that everyone else is wrong except you. But I think that's your dominant point of view - afterall you did say that you were here to get us to retake PFLAP.
That’s actually a bad thing - because it’s a false claim - the Bible does NOT interpret itself . wierwille used that false claim to trick students into believing his interpretation of the Bible is the only correct interpretation.
I always worked VPW's teachings one by one to get to the point of believing them. In the 1970s I was suspicious of several things he taught and had to make sure he was right. Heaven bound is one of them. I also had to get the trinity straight from the scriptures, and I did. That was before JCNG came out. There were several others.
The Bible interpreting itself was a beautiful way of saying that God REALLY had His hand on what got written, and that He co-ordinated the whole Bible's production to His purposes.
I come here to discuss a limited number of topics, honestly and openly. I don't have time for everyone else's topics, but I try to include as much as I can. I do not attempt to talk about everything; it's just not humanly possible. Like everyone else, I must prioritize and accept what doesn't get done.
Does the Bible read itself?
This is not a new topic. It is directly related to the Bible interpreting itself.
The Bible interpreting itself was a beautiful way of saying that God REALLY had His hand on what got written, and that He co-ordinated the whole Bible's production to His purposes.
The Bible interprets itself is not a beautiful way of saying anything at all. That's not even what victor said. It's certainly not what he meant. Not even close.
I always worked VPW's teachings one by one to get to the point of believing them. In the 1970s I was suspicious of several things he taught and had to make sure he was right. Heaven bound is one of them. I also had to get the trinity straight from the scriptures, and I did. That was before JCNG came out. There were several others.
The Bible interpreting itself was a beautiful way of saying that God REALLY had His hand on what got written, and that He co-ordinated the whole Bible's production to His purposes.
For some reason I have a hard time believing you worked anything out on your own independent of wierwille’s leading you on. I’ve noticed you often use that as a ploy when others admit how they were tricked in PFAL.
Your claim of “the Bible interpreting itself is a beautiful way of etc…” appears to be a drowning man will clutch at anything to save himself even a floating straw.
For some reason I have a hard time believing you worked anything out on your own independent of wierwille’s leading you on.
That reason is you only know me in my current state, which is one of surety, after much effort.
In the early 1970s I was genuinely scared at times about the trinity. I grew up with it as an RC. To cover my bases, after taking PFAL, I went to local Protestant churches and talked to their ministers about their point of view on the trinity. This was not an easy time for me. It was the preponderance of scriptures I collected, much like the canon issue, that fully persuaded me.
My acceptance of VPW came in stages, fits and starts, even setbacks, over the decades.
I settled on a pro-PFAL stance in 1998, with emphasis on the DOING of the Word that I learned in PFAL, doing it in love, face to face, with local people.
That reason is you only know me in my current state, which is one of surety, after much effort.
In the early 1970s I was genuinely scared at times about the trinity. I grew up with it as an RC. To cover my bases, after taking PFAL, I went to local Protestant churches and talked to their ministers about their point of view on the trinity. This was not an easy time for me. It was the preponderance of scriptures I collected, much like the canon issue, that fully persuaded me.
My acceptance of VPW came in stages, fits and starts, even setbacks, over the decades.
I settled on a pro-PFAL stance in 1998, with emphasis on the DOING of the Word that I learned in PFAL, doing it in love, face to face, with local people.
If your current posts are any reflection of your cognitive skills - it seems to me - contrary to what you believe about yourself, that you were duped just like the rest of us were - but YOU have failed to escape from that mental prison.
That reason is you only know me in my current state, which is one of surety, after much effort.
In the early 1970s I was genuinely scared at times about the trinity. I grew up with it as an RC. To cover my bases, after taking PFAL, I went to local Protestant churches and talked to their ministers about their point of view on the trinity. This was not an easy time for me. It was the preponderance of scriptures I collected, much like the canon issue, that fully persuaded me.
My acceptance of VPW came in stages, fits and starts, even setbacks, over the decades.
I settled on a pro-PFAL stance in 1998, with emphasis on the DOING of the Word that I learned in PFAL, doing it in love, face to face, with local people.
With those different writers, that later writer would almost always be familiar with the earlier writer. The Author knew what He was dealing with and coordinated the individual efforts so that the Bible would be a complete whole, with only one Author.
Which still doesn’t make one author 40 conduits. They are humans who get inspired not controlled with automatic writing.
My first objection, though, is how she objected to the idea that "the Bible interprets itself." I find that objection very dim witted, even when pumped up with detail like with the posters that attacked it 15 years ago here. It slowed down my reading, but I still intend to finish it. That interpretation issue lowered my expectations and the book's priority in my schedule.
In a nutshell: Imagine how quirky it is for God to issue His Word to communicate to us, but then He FAILS to put cues, keys, and signposts in there to guide sincere seekers. That sounds like a bad way to get a message out. It's like Him saying "I want you to know something but I will not help you understand it."
So basically since you disagree with her post you put reading the rest of the book on hold.
Actually that is your pattern. Any time the discussion gets too logical for your premise you flee. You censor. You refuse to consider.
I don’t have to imagine your quirky ideas of God. Instead I can read about Him easily through 40 authors of coverage. I don’t need Wierwilles paint by numbers rules that he used for the intent of fleecing people.
Most Christians are similar to me. They enjoy the reading of scripture freely with no cult interpretation that hides itself disguised as keys but are really locks.
To give Mike a cliff notes overview of Charlene’s book, since she was there when the research department was in full swing, her story tells the truth about the details behind how VP actually did or did not do research. From an observer involved.
It’s an easy read for most, that is unless you have some Superman model of VP built up in your mind where you don’t want the information because it conflicts with your preconceived notions.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
120
259
157
205
Popular Days
Nov 2
154
Oct 30
111
Nov 3
106
Nov 4
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 120 posts
T-Bone 259 posts
OldSkool 157 posts
Nathan_Jr 205 posts
Popular Days
Nov 2 2022
154 posts
Oct 30 2022
111 posts
Nov 3 2022
106 posts
Nov 4 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
VPW's statement that the Bible interprets itself is nonsense. The act of interpretation of any text is done by the reader of the text. People interpret what they read. They are the ones who give it me
waysider
And in doing so, he was violating his own "To Whom it is Written" rule.
Charity
What I see in what you wrote Chockfull is that we were meant to have a relationship with the class - you know the one that replaced our relationship with Christ. It was our lord in that it had power,
Posted Images
OldSkool
No, not at all. But you don't really discuss topics honestly and openly and you know it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Admit the truth: you aren't slowly reading it and you will likely never read it at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
At least three histories have already been written. They have totally avoided any style that could be called whitewashing. I'm thinking of Kahler, Skedgell and Edge. I'm hoping Rocky or Skyrider write one soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
So sorry to refuse your supervision here.
I have my own priorities to juggle... right this minute, on this thread, it is "the Bible interprets itself" is a good thing about PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Does the Bible read itself?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Again: Give respect and you will get it. Calling anyone dim-witted is inappropriate and make you look dimwitted for not accepting the fact that we all understand you from soup to nuts, but when we disagree you resort to insults and passive/agressive attacks on people. Stating that people don't get where you are coming from. I say emphatically: you don't get where any one of us is coming from because there is no honest and opne communication. I don't even think you actually read posts but skim over them until you find something to use as troll bait...basing that assumption on how you've stated you handled Undertow....reading it slowly...you said youve read 5% --- over 5 years that's 23.7 pages.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yep, right on cue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That’s actually a bad thing - because it’s a false claim - the Bible does NOT interpret itself . wierwille used that false claim to trick students into believing his interpretation of the Bible is the only correct interpretation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I come here to discuss a limited number of topics, honestly and openly. I don't have time for everyone else's topics, but I try to include as much as I can. I do not attempt to talk about everything; it's just not humanly possible. Like everyone else, I must prioritize and accept what doesn't get done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Replace topics with "points of view" and I think you are on to something. But I am sure, since there are multiple people all saying the same thing - that you don't discuss topics open and honestly -, that everyone else is wrong except you. But I think that's your dominant point of view - afterall you did say that you were here to get us to retake PFLAP.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Allright...enough of this bullshonta...Im off to take a big ole Sunday afternoon nap. Mike---cya a little laters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I always worked VPW's teachings one by one to get to the point of believing them. In the 1970s I was suspicious of several things he taught and had to make sure he was right. Heaven bound is one of them. I also had to get the trinity straight from the scriptures, and I did. That was before JCNG came out. There were several others.
The Bible interpreting itself was a beautiful way of saying that God REALLY had His hand on what got written, and that He co-ordinated the whole Bible's production to His purposes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Does the Bible read itself?
This is not a new topic. It is directly related to the Bible interpreting itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Falling back into your old habits of napping during PFAL zzzZZZ
ZZzzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The Bible interprets itself is not a beautiful way of saying anything at all. That's not even what victor said. It's certainly not what he meant. Not even close.
Does the Bible read itself?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
For some reason I have a hard time believing you worked anything out on your own independent of wierwille’s leading you on. I’ve noticed you often use that as a ploy when others admit how they were tricked in PFAL.
Your claim of “the Bible interpreting itself is a beautiful way of etc…” appears to be a drowning man will clutch at anything to save himself even a floating straw.
Edited by T-BoneTypo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That reason is you only know me in my current state, which is one of surety, after much effort.
In the early 1970s I was genuinely scared at times about the trinity. I grew up with it as an RC. To cover my bases, after taking PFAL, I went to local Protestant churches and talked to their ministers about their point of view on the trinity. This was not an easy time for me. It was the preponderance of scriptures I collected, much like the canon issue, that fully persuaded me.
My acceptance of VPW came in stages, fits and starts, even setbacks, over the decades.
I settled on a pro-PFAL stance in 1998, with emphasis on the DOING of the Word that I learned in PFAL, doing it in love, face to face, with local people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Might be better if you were "doing the word" that you learned in the BIBLE. The gospels and the epistles would be a good starting place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
If your current posts are any reflection of your cognitive skills - it seems to me - contrary to what you believe about yourself, that you were duped just like the rest of us were - but YOU have failed to escape from that mental prison.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Does the Bible read itself?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Which still doesn’t make one author 40 conduits. They are humans who get inspired not controlled with automatic writing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So basically since you disagree with her post you put reading the rest of the book on hold.
Actually that is your pattern. Any time the discussion gets too logical for your premise you flee. You censor. You refuse to consider.
I don’t have to imagine your quirky ideas of God. Instead I can read about Him easily through 40 authors of coverage. I don’t need Wierwilles paint by numbers rules that he used for the intent of fleecing people.
Most Christians are similar to me. They enjoy the reading of scripture freely with no cult interpretation that hides itself disguised as keys but are really locks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
To give Mike a cliff notes overview of Charlene’s book, since she was there when the research department was in full swing, her story tells the truth about the details behind how VP actually did or did not do research. From an observer involved.
It’s an easy read for most, that is unless you have some Superman model of VP built up in your mind where you don’t want the information because it conflicts with your preconceived notions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Here’s some inescapable logic - if the Bible interprets itself then surely the tithe can pay itself.
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.