I remember sitting in in the PFAL'77 class when Dr said the phrase "all without exception and all ...[pause]... WITH distinction..." Immediately after the pause there was quite a loud murmur in the croud. During the pause it was VERY quiet.
Here's how the phrases occur in the books:
all without distinction - PFAL pg 65,66
all with distinction -JCNG pg 94 (2nd ed.); GMWD pg 241
all without exception - PFAL pp 65,66,67,191; GMWD pp 18,153; ADAN pp 24,46
***
Bullinger uses the phrase "all without distinction" in "The Companion Bible" on page 1531 in the side note for John 6:44, and also on pages 109 and 110 of "How to Enjoy the Bible." The latter can be found on the Internet, and the former may be there too by now.
***
I don't have any difficulty believing that Dr saw some things before seeing Bullinger. Why would Bullinger be the all seeing, all knowing Grand Poobah, and no one but him can see things?
I can sit down with a person and a KJV and go through complete proofs of the Four Crucified With Christ and When Did Judas hang Himself with no notes, and using a clean Gideon Bible. When tradition is under suspicion, it's not that hard to see these things if time and place are carefully watched.
I don't have any difficulty believing that Dr got very encouraged to see that Bullinger had previously seen what he had been working. There are several places where Dr mentions Bullinger's influence, like in a 1970 Family Camp called "How to Enjoy the Bible." Tapes of that camp were later released as Tapes of the Month in the 80's.
Here is what Dr writes in an OUR TIMES Editorial from the May/June 1979 Way Magazine:
"This is the way I worked God’s Word when I discovered the truth that Jesus Christ was crucified on a Wednesday and raised on Saturday. Finding truths like this made me “stand out like a sore thumb” in so-called Christendom.
"For almost fifteen years, no one thanked me for what I taught. People did not accept much of my heart and life. When I shared with them what I had found in God’s Word, they would shout, “Heresy!” But Dr. E. E. Higgins told me one night after I taught at the LaSalle Hotel in Chicago that I taught like Bullinger wrote. Then she took me up to her office in the hotel and gave me her copy of How to Enjoy the Bible. Back in the early 1900’s, Bullinger had found and seen many of the things in the Word that I was finding. Reading his book was like getting a drink of cool water from a desert oasis. I still have a great respect and love for the work of E. W. Bullinger, which will stand as a monument until the return of Christ."
***
I was told once that Dr had over ten different formats in which he taught the foundational class from 1953 to 1967. This meeting with Dr Higgins was somewhere in the mid 50's. Between that time and 1967 he experimented with these many ways of teaching, but in 1967 he settled on a format that roughly resembled Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible" for the first 9 sessions and with plenty of deviations.
Not to compare my anger at him with yours, but anger WAS there at times for me. The source of my pain was the converse of yours, but it was real pain.
If it's any help, I was often ....ed at him, or at least disappointed with him in 1978, then again in the early 80's, and then again from the late 80's to 1998.
By the late 90's I was often angry at him, having spent a decade seething over the John Scheonheit paper.
When I look at how those associations were broken for me I wonder how it happened! I could change my thinking only when I discovered that the texts helped me.
It was like a hole being punched in a tire full of air, and my rage just eased out.
In PFAL VP supported the 'all without exception/without distinction' statement by going to scriptures which said all people can be saved (without exception) but not all were saved (without distinction). He was trying to get us to be careful while reading the bible. He was clever getting us to focus on the semantics of the word 'all' while impregnating our minds with the truth that all CAN be saved but not all WOULD be saved (free will). This was perhaps one of his best teaching techniques. It doesn't matter much to me if he copied it from Bullinger or if he changed anything at PFAL 77: either it's true or it's not.
Hey Mike, or anybody? I'm certain that in one collateral chapter VP quotes the poet Ezra Pound. I thought it was in God's Magnified Word, but I can't find it. Ezra Pound was an Idaho born poet who had to go to Europe to find his 'own private Idaho' because he was one of the people Mc Carthy targeted. But does anybody remember where that reference is?
I don't have any difficulty believing that Dr saw some things before seeing Bullinger. Why would Bullinger be the all seeing, all knowing Grand Poobah, and no one but him can see things?
some things???? Hmmmmmm, could you be more vague please? :D--> What proof do you have? Anything in writing?
Get real, Mike. It is OBVIOUS by now that PFAL was NOT original and NOT VPW's revelation. The mass marketing and SHaklee / Tupperware / multi level marketing of PFAL was, however an original and useful idea until the age of the Internet.
Hey, its a free country. If you can get away with plagiarism and blatant copying of other mens works and sell it, more power to you. That's what businesses do.
But it was DEFININITELY implied, if not outright stated that after the alleged gas pumps, a man got revelation from God and found these truths ON HIS OWN from the bible. Therein you have the lies and dishonesty, in spite of the fact that PFAL may have benefitted some who believed the dishonest implications.
If you believe that I have some land in the Everglades I would like to interest you in.
But Mike - you win. I do not wish to bore others with this almost embarrasing conversation about these works. I do not have time for a debate about this.
I too have had the "pain" of boredom to blast through regarding the PFAL books. It was when I was shown that there were hidden things in there that it became more interesting.
It was shortly after this "treasure hunt" idea was shown to me that I discovered that the very simple mental freedom stuff in BTMS had never totally worked for me BECAUSE I had never taken it seriously enough.
So, since 1998 I've seen some very interesting hidden things, and many of the surface simple things are now taking root deeper in me and have more and more of a liberating effect.
Before 1998, and after I had long since (1973) transferred corrections from BTMS to my Cambridge wide Margin KJV, I was bored silly with most of the volumes 1-5, but ESPECIALLY with that one. Even the title, "The Bible Tells Me So," offended me and sounded childish, because of that children's song.
Now I look at my Blue Book and feel like a child myself, as we have discussed a few weeks ago.
Now I read my Blue Book and marvel at how God snuck it into my library, and then shined a spotlight on it in recent years, right when I needed it most.
Hey Mike, or anybody? I'm certain that in one collateral chapter VP quotes the poet Ezra Pound. I thought it was in God's Magnified Word, but I can't find it. Ezra Pound was an Idaho born poet who had to go to Europe to find his 'own private Idaho' because he was one of the people Mc Carthy targeted. But does anybody remember where that reference is?
I just checked Book 3, "the Word's Way", and I didn't find it anywhere
quote:Now I read my Blue Book and marvel at how God snuck it into my library, and then shined a spotlight on it in recent years, right when I needed it most.
...And.....Mike's gonna make this known....like it hasn't been known....since vpw himself got this dictation from snow-pump revelation.
Of course it's possible that Wierwille figured out some things that Bullinger did independently, but I would say that itr's unlikely in light of times that he quotes Bullinger, but clearly doesn't understand what he quotes.
Love ya Mike. Takes all kinds to keep life fun and interesting :D-->. Don't go. You are truly a hoot. You have every right, I suppose, in an open forum.
And I learned window cleaning in The Way. Had it not been for The Way I would have never learned that revelation and guidance, so it mus be snow inspired and profitable.
Funny, my competitors were never in the Way. They must do false window cleaning.
I don't have any difficulty believing that Dr saw some things before seeing Bullinger. Why would Bullinger be the all seeing, all knowing Grand Poobah, and no one but him can see things?
While I will concede that it is remotely possible for Wierwille to have come up with this on his own (complete with identical grammatical error), it seems unlikely that a man (Wierwille) whose lifelong quest was, supposedly, to discover "The Truth", had somehow missed the works of a man (Bullinger) who had been dead since 1913.
Wierwille was so academically lazy, he didn't even bother to try to understand why this concept was grammatically incorrect and thus rephrase it to disguise his plagiarism.
He did, however, make the effort to change "dispensations" to "administrations". I suspect he did this because there was a pre-existing awareness of "Dispensationalism".
He just didn't care because (IMO) he didn't think he would ever be caught in his deception.
Of course it's possible that Wierwille figured out some things that Bullinger did independently, but I would say that it's unlikely in light of times that he quotes Bullinger, but clearly doesn't understand what he quotes.
I said this over four years ago and still believe it!
Somebody mentioned Wierwille and Bullinger both coming up with the same grammatical error, that a good example of plagiarism without understanding what he plagiarized.
Two of my favorite examples are "Private Interpretation" and "Jesus' Brothers"
In Bullinger's explanation of 'private interpretation' he expounds upon the words ίδίος and επίλυώ (idios & epiluo). He gives examples of verses where επίλυώ is used and it always means something along the lines 'expound', 'open up', 'unveil' 'make known' etc. The biblical context is usually, if not always, in the context of teaching or explaining. He then gives non-biblical examples to help make his point, one of which is the example of dogs being let loose upon the game.
As to the word rendered "interpretation" we shall find that it occurs nowhere else; neither in the New Testament, nor in the Septuagint. It is επίλυσίς (epilusis). We have no guide to its meaning as we had with the word "private." As this noun occurs nowhere else we must go to the verb επίλυώ (epiluo), which is made up of the preposition επί (epi), upon, and λυώ (luo), to loosen. We find Xenophon using it of letting dogs loose upon the ground to chase a hare. Another Greek writer uses it of breaking open a letter bearing upon a certain subject. So that its usage is perfectly clear so far. In the New Testament this verb occurs only twice (Mark 4:34 and Acts 19:39). From Mark 4:34 it is evident that it will bear the AV rendering expound* but it will also bear a larger meaning. He spake publicly "with many such parables," but "when they were alone," He broke open the casket which hid His real meaning; He unfolded the treasures that were therein; He let them loose as it were and displayed them before the eyes of His disciples.
Wierwille teaches it as if 'interpretation' is the equivalent of wild dogs running loose, where Bullinger makes no such conclusion, but he was obviously Wierwille's source. He took the 'dogs' example and 'ran' with it - while not really understanding Bullinger's point.
My other favorite is 'The Lord's Brethren'. Bullinger taught that, of the two geneologies, the 'royal' one in Matthew was Joseph's. He uses this belief to counter some who said that 'James, Joses, Simon and Judas' were Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage and not the sons of Joseph & Mary, by pointing out that older half-brothers would 'invalidate Jesus' claim to the throne of David'.
Wierwille taught that the geneology in Matthew was Mary's, not Joseph's, but he uses the same reasoning about older half brothers superceding Jesus' claim to David's throne, I believe even the same exact words as Bullinger, which made no sense since Wierwille taught that the 'royal' line was through Mary. This one isn't about whether Wierwille or Bullinger were right or wrong about the genelogies, but that Wierwille was quoting Bullinger and not understanding Bullinger's point.
. This one isn't about whether Wierwille or Bullinger were right or wrong about the genelogies, but that Wierwille was quoting Bullinger and not understanding Bullinger's point.
Like hearing an 8 year old kid sing "To All The Girls I've Loved Before".
Recommended Posts
Mike
Thanks shaz.
I remember sitting in in the PFAL'77 class when Dr said the phrase "all without exception and all ...[pause]... WITH distinction..." Immediately after the pause there was quite a loud murmur in the croud. During the pause it was VERY quiet.
Here's how the phrases occur in the books:
all without distinction - PFAL pg 65,66
all with distinction -JCNG pg 94 (2nd ed.); GMWD pg 241
all without exception - PFAL pp 65,66,67,191; GMWD pp 18,153; ADAN pp 24,46
***
Bullinger uses the phrase "all without distinction" in "The Companion Bible" on page 1531 in the side note for John 6:44, and also on pages 109 and 110 of "How to Enjoy the Bible." The latter can be found on the Internet, and the former may be there too by now.
***
I don't have any difficulty believing that Dr saw some things before seeing Bullinger. Why would Bullinger be the all seeing, all knowing Grand Poobah, and no one but him can see things?
I can sit down with a person and a KJV and go through complete proofs of the Four Crucified With Christ and When Did Judas hang Himself with no notes, and using a clean Gideon Bible. When tradition is under suspicion, it's not that hard to see these things if time and place are carefully watched.
I don't have any difficulty believing that Dr got very encouraged to see that Bullinger had previously seen what he had been working. There are several places where Dr mentions Bullinger's influence, like in a 1970 Family Camp called "How to Enjoy the Bible." Tapes of that camp were later released as Tapes of the Month in the 80's.
Here is what Dr writes in an OUR TIMES Editorial from the May/June 1979 Way Magazine:
"This is the way I worked God’s Word when I discovered the truth that Jesus Christ was crucified on a Wednesday and raised on Saturday. Finding truths like this made me “stand out like a sore thumb” in so-called Christendom.
"For almost fifteen years, no one thanked me for what I taught. People did not accept much of my heart and life. When I shared with them what I had found in God’s Word, they would shout, “Heresy!” But Dr. E. E. Higgins told me one night after I taught at the LaSalle Hotel in Chicago that I taught like Bullinger wrote. Then she took me up to her office in the hotel and gave me her copy of How to Enjoy the Bible. Back in the early 1900’s, Bullinger had found and seen many of the things in the Word that I was finding. Reading his book was like getting a drink of cool water from a desert oasis. I still have a great respect and love for the work of E. W. Bullinger, which will stand as a monument until the return of Christ."
***
I was told once that Dr had over ten different formats in which he taught the foundational class from 1953 to 1967. This meeting with Dr Higgins was somewhere in the mid 50's. Between that time and 1967 he experimented with these many ways of teaching, but in 1967 he settled on a format that roughly resembled Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible" for the first 9 sessions and with plenty of deviations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
excathedra,
I wish I could help you break that association.
Not to compare my anger at him with yours, but anger WAS there at times for me. The source of my pain was the converse of yours, but it was real pain.
If it's any help, I was often ....ed at him, or at least disappointed with him in 1978, then again in the early 80's, and then again from the late 80's to 1998.
By the late 90's I was often angry at him, having spent a decade seething over the John Scheonheit paper.
When I look at how those associations were broken for me I wonder how it happened! I could change my thinking only when I discovered that the texts helped me.
It was like a hole being punched in a tire full of air, and my rage just eased out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
In PFAL VP supported the 'all without exception/without distinction' statement by going to scriptures which said all people can be saved (without exception) but not all were saved (without distinction). He was trying to get us to be careful while reading the bible. He was clever getting us to focus on the semantics of the word 'all' while impregnating our minds with the truth that all CAN be saved but not all WOULD be saved (free will). This was perhaps one of his best teaching techniques. It doesn't matter much to me if he copied it from Bullinger or if he changed anything at PFAL 77: either it's true or it's not.
Hey Mike, or anybody? I'm certain that in one collateral chapter VP quotes the poet Ezra Pound. I thought it was in God's Magnified Word, but I can't find it. Ezra Pound was an Idaho born poet who had to go to Europe to find his 'own private Idaho' because he was one of the people Mc Carthy targeted. But does anybody remember where that reference is?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
I don't have any difficulty believing that Dr saw some things before seeing Bullinger. Why would Bullinger be the all seeing, all knowing Grand Poobah, and no one but him can see things?
some things???? Hmmmmmm, could you be more vague please?
:D--> What proof do you have? Anything in writing?
Get real, Mike. It is OBVIOUS by now that PFAL was NOT original and NOT VPW's revelation. The mass marketing and SHaklee / Tupperware / multi level marketing of PFAL was, however an original and useful idea until the age of the Internet.
Hey, its a free country. If you can get away with plagiarism and blatant copying of other mens works and sell it, more power to you. That's what businesses do.
But it was DEFININITELY implied, if not outright stated that after the alleged gas pumps, a man got revelation from God and found these truths ON HIS OWN from the bible. Therein you have the lies and dishonesty, in spite of the fact that PFAL may have benefitted some who believed the dishonest implications.
If you believe that I have some land in the Everglades I would like to interest you in.
But Mike - you win. I do not wish to bore others with this almost embarrasing conversation about these works. I do not have time for a debate about this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
aye chihuahua!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i wasn't talking about being angry, mike. i was talking about being bored.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Exy,
:)-->
I too have had the "pain" of boredom to blast through regarding the PFAL books. It was when I was shown that there were hidden things in there that it became more interesting.
It was shortly after this "treasure hunt" idea was shown to me that I discovered that the very simple mental freedom stuff in BTMS had never totally worked for me BECAUSE I had never taken it seriously enough.
So, since 1998 I've seen some very interesting hidden things, and many of the surface simple things are now taking root deeper in me and have more and more of a liberating effect.
Before 1998, and after I had long since (1973) transferred corrections from BTMS to my Cambridge wide Margin KJV, I was bored silly with most of the volumes 1-5, but ESPECIALLY with that one. Even the title, "The Bible Tells Me So," offended me and sounded childish, because of that children's song.
Now I look at my Blue Book and feel like a child myself, as we have discussed a few weeks ago.
Now I read my Blue Book and marvel at how God snuck it into my library, and then shined a spotlight on it in recent years, right when I needed it most.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jardinero
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I just checked Book 3, "the Word's Way", and I didn't find it anywhere
in the Burnt Umber Book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike...
Do you ever wonder why you're the only one who sees these "hidden things"???
God "snuck it into" your library??? I thought you got it when you took the class...
...hmmm....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
...And.....Mike's gonna make this known....like it hasn't been known....since vpw himself got this dictation from snow-pump revelation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Of course it's possible that Wierwille figured out some things that Bullinger did independently, but I would say that itr's unlikely in light of times that he quotes Bullinger, but clearly doesn't understand what he quotes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
Love ya Mike. Takes all kinds to keep life fun and interesting
:D-->. Don't go. You are truly a hoot. You have every right, I suppose, in an open forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
.
.
.
I owe it all to window cleaning!
:D-->
.
.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Mike...When God snuck the blue book into your library, was there any snow on it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
And I learned window cleaning in The Way. Had it not been for The Way I would have never learned that revelation and guidance, so it mus be snow inspired and profitable.
Funny, my competitors were never in the Way. They must do false window cleaning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Wordwolf: Thanks for looking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
While I will concede that it is remotely possible for Wierwille to have come up with this on his own (complete with identical grammatical error), it seems unlikely that a man (Wierwille) whose lifelong quest was, supposedly, to discover "The Truth", had somehow missed the works of a man (Bullinger) who had been dead since 1913.
HERE
How To Enjoy The Bible had been in print since 1916.
HERE
Wierwille was so academically lazy, he didn't even bother to try to understand why this concept was grammatically incorrect and thus rephrase it to disguise his plagiarism.
He did, however, make the effort to change "dispensations" to "administrations". I suspect he did this because there was a pre-existing awareness of "Dispensationalism".
He just didn't care because (IMO) he didn't think he would ever be caught in his deception.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
Hey mine didn't have snow but alot of crap in it! :o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Somebody mentioned Wierwille and Bullinger both coming up with the same grammatical error, that a good example of plagiarism without understanding what he plagiarized.
Two of my favorite examples are "Private Interpretation" and "Jesus' Brothers"
In Bullinger's explanation of 'private interpretation' he expounds upon the words ίδίος and επίλυώ (idios & epiluo). He gives examples of verses where επίλυώ is used and it always means something along the lines 'expound', 'open up', 'unveil' 'make known' etc. The biblical context is usually, if not always, in the context of teaching or explaining. He then gives non-biblical examples to help make his point, one of which is the example of dogs being let loose upon the game.
Wierwille teaches it as if 'interpretation' is the equivalent of wild dogs running loose, where Bullinger makes no such conclusion, but he was obviously Wierwille's source. He took the 'dogs' example and 'ran' with it
- while not really understanding Bullinger's point.
My other favorite is 'The Lord's Brethren'. Bullinger taught that, of the two geneologies, the 'royal' one in Matthew was Joseph's. He uses this belief to counter some who said that 'James, Joses, Simon and Judas' were Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage and not the sons of Joseph & Mary, by pointing out that older half-brothers would 'invalidate Jesus' claim to the throne of David'.
Wierwille taught that the geneology in Matthew was Mary's, not Joseph's, but he uses the same reasoning about older half brothers superceding Jesus' claim to David's throne, I believe even the same exact words as Bullinger, which made no sense since Wierwille taught that the 'royal' line was through Mary. This one isn't about whether Wierwille or Bullinger were right or wrong about the genelogies, but that Wierwille was quoting Bullinger and not understanding Bullinger's point.
That's all (without exceptional distinction
)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Like hearing an 8 year old kid sing "To All The Girls I've Loved Before".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Thanks man - that was good for a serious chuckle...
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.