PFAL: An Unorthodox Translation

[Tom Strange]

CM,

Hey! What are you doing posting all that PFAL material?!

Are you trying to steal my act? ;)

But seriously, I'm happy to see you posting that,

unless of course, you changed some key portions to trick me. ;)

In my first scanning it the text looks pretty good. What's your point? :)

Probably that PFAL makes none of the claims that you say it does....

[Tom Strange]

Here is a passage I have posted many times and should be totally familiar with everyone. Searching this GSC board for the other places where I’ve posted it should bring in many details worth keeping in mind.

GMWD p. 227-228

CHAPTER TWELVE

The Final Victory

The great hope of the Christian Church is the return of Christ and our gathering together unto him. There are aspects of Christ’s return which we find most clearly explained by God’s rightly-divided Word [PFAL writings].

Mike, don't you think that if veepee had meant "PFAL writings" he would have said it? He didn't and he didn't... but I know you won't let that stop you.

[snip]

Having this background, we can now turn to the Word of God and see its clarity.

Again Mike, notice here... veepee didn't say "turn to PFAL"...

Mike, you do a better job of making my point than I do! ...thanks for the help!

[Mike]

Tom,

THANK YOU for posting on PFAL and not me.

You wrote: Mike, don't you think that if veepee had meant "PFAL writings" he would have said it? He didn't and he didn't... but I know you won't let that stop you.”

There are lots of ways to refer to what I usually call the PFAL writings. There is no rightly divided Word sold in regular bookstores, not in pure form anyway. PFAL writings are the only things Dr COULD be referring to here.

***

Dr wrote: “Having this background, we can now turn to the Word of God and see its clarity.”

You wrote: ”Again Mike, notice here... veepee didn't say "turn to PFAL"...”

Again, Tom, where are YOU going to turn to get the Word of God into your hands, or on your desk, or on my Table of Challenge?

What Word of God that has weight and visibility to all, that is tangible and is concrete, that we dare not alter and must accept as is CAN WE TURN TO and see clear?

There’s only one answer: PFAL!

Edited May 7, 2006 by Mike

[Tom Strange]

well... there's certainly no doubt that is your opinion...

[Mike]

Tom,

Give me an alternative.

I said there is only one answer, and I don't think you can come up with another, not fitting all those conditions. So, unless you CAN, it's your opinion too, albeit reluctant.

[dmiller]

There are lots of ways to refer to what I usually call the PFAL writings. There is no rightly divided Word sold in regular bookstores, not in pure form anyway.

PFAL writings are the only things Dr COULD be referring to here.

I don't believe that.

I might -- if docvic had held the orange book and quote from it (in the class), but he didn't.

Edited May 7, 2006 by dmiller

[Mike]

dmiller,

But the orange book didn't come out until 3 years after the film was made.

If you don't believe PFAL is the only thing that fills the bill, then name another.

Edited May 7, 2006 by Mike

[dmiller]

But the orange book didn't come out until 3 years after the film was made.

See? He couldn't have been referring to pfal then. ;)

[CM]

There’s only one answer: PFAL!

There’s only one answer: PFAL!

There’s only one answer: PFAL!

There’s only one answer: PFAL!

There’s only one answer: PFAL!

there always more then one answer

[dmiller]

If you don't believe PFAL is the only thing that fills the bill, then name another.

Sure, ok, (or as they say up here in Minney-soda) --- Ya, you betcha, eh?!

How about referring back to THE WORD, that docvic reads from in the class???

Yup -- I agree -- It isn't the *pure, original God-breathed entity* that came down from on high,

but neither is docvic's conveluted conglomeration of pirated plagiarisms

that he stole from accredited authors/ researchers either.

Docvic was a thief, when it came to the printed page.

You hang onto what you want to. I'll do the same. :)

(Again --- THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK). Just an observation.

Edited May 7, 2006 by dmiller

[doojable]

There are lots of ways to refer to what I usually call the PFAL writings. There is no rightly divided Word sold in regular bookstores, not in pure form anyway. PFAL writings are the only things Dr COULD be referring to here.

Sigh..... I said I wasn't going to do this but.....

Mike,

Dr Weirwille always referred to the Word of God as the Word that we would rightly divide from the Bible.

If I'm not mistaking, even if he meant PFAL - you are saying that even THAT hasn't been rightly divided - so no Word of God there either.

SO.....THE ONLY WAY to get the WORD OF GOD is to rightly divide it, no matter what the source. Dr himself spent lots of time studying the Word -( when he wasn't out doing his other naughties.) He WASN"T up late at night studying PFAL!

To the extent that we rightly divide that Word of God we will have the Word of Truth. That is nearly a direct quote - from memory. (Yikes!)

There are no easy answers. There are no one-verse quotes that will change our lives.

Not a class, not a book, not a retreat, not a teaching ........even the Word of God itself will not heal, will not deliver unless it is acted on prayerfully and God has been invited to be a part of one's life. I am not only speaking about the new birth here.

If the Word of God is treated like some grand recipe book full of formulas for living - the endeavor will fail. End of story.

All this circular reasoning is making me dizzy....I'm gonna get off the merry go round for a while - life has been hard and I'm tired.

Here's a interesting thought for all of you - How about instead of arguing, you try finding those things you agree on and celebrate those matters.HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Jesus is the Son of God

God loves us

Jesus Christ is the Saviour

That's a start. Instead we (Mayebe not all but I'm included) use God's Word as a weapon to tear each other down and make ourselves feel superior. Nice! It seems like its easier to employ schoolyard politics here than civility. (I'm not referring to any one person here - but if that shoe fits.......)

Where's the love? The mercy? The justice?

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited May 7, 2006 by doojable

[templelady]

Mike is having real problems with understanding NO PM's. He is having so much trouble that he went ahead and sent one anyway, no e-mails though. So, Since I told Mike no "backdoor conversations" and I meant no "backdoor conversations" here is the PM for all to see

Hi Maureen,

You wrote in the PFAL thread: “Mike I have received no messages from you except for what is on this thread, since I first agreed to reread the books.”

That’s right. But I DID I sent you 2 PMs yesterday and they bounced back.

Interesting since you claimed that you were PMIng me last week and they were bouncing back--So which is it Last week?, Yesterday? ,never?

I didn’t see your regular e-mail address posted in your Profile until JUST recently. Hardly anyone posts their e-mail address any more, at least that’s been my impression.

couldn't have looked too hard since the button that says send Email and the button that says send PM Are right next to each other and I know you can find the PM one, Or maybe not since this is the first PM I've received

And your telling me to look right, when your fine print snail mail address was actually to the left REALLY confused me until Tom Strange pointed out your little error in his kind post

. Yep, the dyslexia does that, sorry

I’m not as happy to discuss book transfers in a “Private regular e-mail Message” (PreM) as I am in a PM. I like PMs better sometimes because the moderators can read them. I like chaperones sometimes. Why are you so disinclined to discuss things in PMs?

Moderators can read communication just fine right here on the forums itself, chaperone too-no doubt in anyone's mind what is or isn't said. So, let's just keep it all out in the open since I have nothing o say that I wouldn't say to God himself

I don’t like the way you try and strong-arm me in my generosity to you. You seem to want to call the shots, but why? ... and how DARE you? I’m trying to be a nice guy and you’re all uppity with me. What’s the deal?

Mike, what we are dealing with is what in my day was called "projection" you are claiming I have your faults to justify your faults. I "dare" as you put it because this is my life And I get to decide how I am willing to communicate with other Human beings

There ARE reasons I have for discussing this in private, so I want to counsel you that “heavenly Father” who said that I was acting wrongly was NOT the true God. It was your 5-senses hunch with a little emotional nuance attached that makes it feel spiritual. It is not

Discuss what? You mail the books, I said I'd pay for shipping, no discussion needed, certainly not any discussion in secret. As for God not being God well I'll let you explain to Him He isn't Him.

We have some private discussing to do, and I insist on it. Agape,

Mike

You aren't in charge of my communications, I am. And I certainly am when you use said communications to imply I am somehow deceptive or that Heavenly Father isn't Heavenly Father. Send the books, don't send the books, it is your reputation

[templelady]

Mike what you don't seem to understand is that when Jesus Christ returns it is over, NO more teaching, No more Holy Spirit (not needed when Christ himself is present) no more prophecy, sit, Interpretation ,faith, healing, raising from the dead etc etc. Done, finis, over. The sands of the hour glass have run out. IF you aren't HIs then you dont get to go along for the ride. that simple.

I sense you have not fully grasped the enormity of that day, you seem to think there is a side door where you will have more time, to study, to understand, to listen for revelation, to get in tune with Heavenly father.

There won't be "comes as a thief in the night" "in the twinkling of an eye" should give you a clue that once that trump sounds the time for repentance, for accepting Christ as Lord, the Grace administration if that phraseology is more helpful, O V E R

[dmiller]

Mike --- I would be interested to hear *your* take on the return/rapture.

Perhaps you could start a new thread about it??

As I have said in the past -- I'm willing to listen.

I may not agree --- but I'm willing to listen. :)

[WordWolf]

Mike --- I would be interested to hear *your* take on the return/rapture.

Perhaps you could start a new thread about it??

As I have said in the past -- I'm willing to listen.

I may not agree --- but I'm willing to listen. :)

Here's some free advice, make of it what you will, Mike....

I think few of us would object to a new thread on the return/rapture,

so long as it was a thread specifically for THAT and wasn't used as

a backdoor to another thread on Mike's doctrine general.

Many of us would read such a thread.

If you want people to seriously consider your position,

just post it.

You can post "this is what I think",

or "this is what I think and why",

and people can discuss, maybe agree in parts,

but thinking honestly in the process.

IF, however,

you phrase it with all sorts of diversions into

"many people think"

or "answer this question first"

or anything NOT a direct statement,

then all you'll do is antagonize your audience.

Make of that free advice what you will.

[templelady]

What about those who leave in the rapture? Many who are left behind will have a knowledge of the gospel,. many will have known it to be true but, for whatever reason chose not to follow Christ. NOW that He has come and gone, is there a chance for them to repent of their behavior? Will they be able to follow Christ and be redeemed at the second coming? How will they manage now that the Holy GHost has been withdrawn? Will they be required to fulfill the law? There are many questions I have about this time period I would be interested in what others have to say on these matters

Edited May 8, 2006 by templelady

[dmiller]

Here's some free advice, make of it what you will, Mike....

I think few of us would object to a new thread on the return/rapture,

so long as it was a thread specifically for THAT and wasn't used as

a backdoor to another thread on Mike's doctrine general.

Many of us would read such a thread.

If you want people to seriously consider your position,

just post it.

You can post "this is what I think",

or "this is what I think and why",

and people can discuss, maybe agree in parts,

but thinking honestly in the process.

Couldn't have said it better -- especially the *few of us* part!

Mike -- it's time for you to start a topic. Let us know what you think about this. :)

If you post it, folks will consider it --- and that is what you look for, eh? ;)

[T-Bone]

Another thread on the Rapture/Return of Christ would be refreshing – as long as it doesn't wind up being more of Mike alluding to PFAL or dodging questions. Although in the post directly below he does directly quote PFAL - he also re-interprets the author's own words by inserting "[PFAL writings]."

Mike posted May 7 2006 2:51 PM

"…What I'm trying to point out is that FOR US GRADS, we get can a GREATER VIEW of the Return than what the rest of the world can get. We can see it NOW spiritually in this early spiritual phase. Here is a passage I have posted many times and should be totally familiar with everyone. Searching this GSC board for the other places where I've posted it should bring in many details worth keeping in mind.

GMWD p. 227-228

CHAPTER TWELVE

The Final Victory

The great hope of the Christian Church is the return of Christ and our gathering together unto him. There are aspects of Christ's return which we find most clearly explained by God's rightly-divided Word [PFAL writings]…"

Mike posted May 7 2006 3:44 PM

"Tom,

THANK YOU for posting on PFAL and not me.

You wrote: Mike, don't you think that if veepee had meant "PFAL writings" he would have said it? He didn't and he didn't... but I know you won't let that stop you."

There are lots of ways to refer to what I usually call the PFAL writings. There is no rightly divided Word sold in regular bookstores, not in pure form anyway. PFAL writings are the only things Dr COULD be referring to here.

***

Dr wrote: "Having this background, we can now turn to the Word of God and see its clarity."

You wrote: "Again Mike, notice here... veepee didn't say "turn to PFAL"..."

Again, Tom, where are YOU going to turn to get the Word of God into your hands, or on your desk, or on my Table of Challenge?

What Word of God that has weight and visibility to all, that is tangible and is concrete, that we dare not alter and must accept as is CAN WE TURN TO and see clear?

There's only one answer: PFAL!"

Mike is the message – so the last line in the Expanded Amplified and Mortified Translation of the above post is "There is only one answer: Mike's interpretation of PFAL's interpretation of the Word of God." I've posted below an excerpt from PFAL that reveals VPW's idea of translating the Word of God was self-referencing. The following is from Power For Abundant Living: The Accuracy of the Bible by VPW, co 1971, American Christian Press, Chapter 11, The Translations of the Word of God, page 128, 142:

"…Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another word and one verse with another verse. If it the Word of God, then it cannot have a contradiction for God cannot contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding. When we get back to the original, God-breathed Word – which I am confident we can – then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the prophets of old, 'Thus saith the Lord.'…In this study on Power for Abundant Living in which we are interested in the accuracy and integrity of God's Word, we must get back to that original Word which was given when holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. We must strip off the translators' theologies which have come about with man-made devices and once more discover the perfect God-breathed Word."

In my opinion, the above method ignores textual research, scholarship, hermeneutics, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit and assumes VPW's theology is the standard of reference. I also see where Mike pulls his outlandish claims from – like the one about the ancient scriptures being inaccessible & etc. From what I've seen so far, Mike's method of getting back to authentic prophecy is an erroneous adaptation of VPW's erroneous method. It's like making photocopies from photocopies. They keep getting lighter and lighter – except in this case it's farther and farther from the truth.

Edited May 8, 2006 by T-Bone

[What The Hey]

There’s only one answer: PFAL!

....

there always more then one answer

Of course there is always more than one answer. But the question to be asked is - is it the correct answer? I.E.:

God's Word = KJV, RSV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, - ETC., ETC., ETC.

But God's Word Rightly Divided = PFAL and ONLY PFAL. (Mike's claim.)

"…Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another word and one verse with another verse. If it the Word of God, then it cannot have a contradiction for God cannot contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding. When we get back to the original, God-breathed Word – which I am confident we can – then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the prophets of old, 'Thus saith the Lord.'…

And we've all been shown at least 22 cases so far of "Thus saith the Lord" on the previous PFAL thread. Supposedly there are even more? Well even if the Lord did say it, that sure doesn't obligate one to believe it.

In this study on Power for Abundant Living in which we are interested in the accuracy and integrity of God's Word, we must get back to that original Word which was given when holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. We must strip off the translators' theologies which have come about with man-made devices and once more discover the perfect God-breathed Word."

This is the claim PFAL makes regarding itself. But PFAL is only VPW'S comparing of the scriptures - one word w/ another word - one verse w/ another verse so that there is: NO CONTRADICTION as: "God cannot contradict Himself". VPW didn't make an exclusive claim on this. Anyone can do it and it is more an issue of one's own desire to do so.

In my opinion, the above method ignores textual research, scholarship, hermeneutics, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit and assumes VPW's theology is the standard of reference.

Fine. That may indeed be your opinion regarding PFAL, but those are not necessarily the facts regarding PFAL. Your statement only makes one aware that you value your opinion(s) more than the textual rexearch, scholarship, and the "illumination of the Holy Spirit (whatever that might mean to you) etc.

I also see where Mike pulls his outlandish claims from – like the one about the ancient scriptures being inaccessible & etc.

I am not sure what you mean here by "inaccessible", as anyone can purchase a Strongs or a Youngs Analytical Concordance (there are sources on-line as well) an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Bullinger's Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, Bishop K.C. Pillai's Orientalism of the Bible - i.e., "Light Through an Eastern Window" to name just a few. That hardly makes searching the scriptures to anybody: "inaccessible". But where all these biblical tools fall short is in the FACT that they DO NOT (as VPW sates in PFAL) Compare the scriptures - one word w/ another word - one verse w/ another verse so there is NO CONTRADITION. Only PFAL makes this claim. Mike's claim is that PFAL has already done that job for us, and because of that there is no need for us to: "reinvent the wheel". That doesn't mean one can never do it, it's just that it is no longer necessary for one to do so.

From what I've seen so far, Mike's method of getting back to authentic prophecy is an erroneous adaptation of VPW's erroneous method. The key phrase in this statement here, of course, is: "what I've seen so far". That again is one stating their own opinion on the matter. Apparenlty they can't get beyond the "what I've seen so far" which leads them to the conclusion that VPW's method is erroneous. I might ask: How did one arrive at that conclusion when VPW may have used a better microscope than what they may have currently available to them?

It's like making photocopies from photocopies. They keep getting lighter and lighter – except in this case it's farther and farther from the truth.

Who said we are making "photocopies?" Getting back to the scriptures and comparing them - word for word - verse by verse is more like beeing able to see which one has the "greater resolution." That process hardly makes the end result "lighter and lighter - or less vivid." As VPW further explains: "The more high-powered the microscope used to observe the works of man, the more imperfect the object appears. On the other hand, the more high-powered the microscope used to look upon something God formed or made [in this case, His Word] the more perfect and orderly it appears. The closer the scrutiny of God's Word, the more obvious become its beauty and perfection. It is only a man who uses a poor microscope who never sees the greatness of God's Word. He does not observe it to see its perfection. [from: "Order My Steps In Thy Word" - 'God's Blueprint of Creation' p.26 by: Victor P. Wierwille]

It is only in this process - the comparing of word to word, scripture to scripture that constitutues one having a "more powerful microscope". The KJV, NKJV, and later translations do not allow for it (now one may get a different rendering of one verse compared to another translation, but that does not necessarilly produce any greater insight on a biblical topic or subject) nor do any of the biblical tools available to study the bible do that. All the translations and bible study aids available on the market are not pre-occupied with the end result of: "NO CONTRADICTIONS" in the overall revelation of the Word of God. However they are very concerned with the bible backing up their theology or some political church doctrine they subscribe to, even to the end of seeing it preserved in this latest: "new translation".

[Tom Strange]

WTH... are you "on board" with the "Mike PFAL"??? Are you taking/have you taken 'the masters course'...???

[templelady]

All the translations and bible study aids available on the market are not pre-occupied with the end result of: "NO CONTRADICTIONS

Perhaps because "NO CONTRADICTIONS" is not something to be preoccupied with.

If we are discussing one incident reported by one individual then we gauge truthfulness on the consistency of that one persons statements, since there is no reason there should be a contradiction between him saying what he did today at work now, and what he says he did at work today if asked tomorrow,

If it is one incident that many people witnessed --some contradiction is not only allowable but natural.

Let's say a car T-bones another car at an intersection. Witness one, a block away may say "I saw the white car speeding down Main street". Witness two a block closer and around the corner will say "I saw the red truck keep going through the stop sign" Driver A says "I was coming down the street and the red truck ran the stop sign". Driver b says "I came to the stop sign and seeing no one started across when the white car came from nowhere"

They are all telling the truth from the perspective they had

Now we come to the Bible a compilation of works spanning thousands of years, penned by many authors, much of it after the fact. To expect that there should be no contradictions is totally unrealistic. What applied in one situation may very well not have been applicable or proper in another situation. Different witness saw and gave weight to different aspects of a situation given their unique perspective. We only need to be concerned about contradictions that are critical to the spiritual message. ie Heavenly Father is to be worshiped. Jesus Christ is our redeemer,. We are to love our neighbors, We are to feed , clothe and care for our brethren less fortunate than ourselves. etc These messages remain consistent throughout scripture.

IMO, PFAL insistence in trying to explain or eradicate every apparent contradiction in the Bible was a case of not only not seeing the forest for the trees but sometimes not seeing the trees for the leaves. [no puns intended] And it is because this short sightedness developed that so many things went so badly wrong. The Idea of PFAL , giving keys to understand scripture , was in and of itself good. But I think that along the way many of us, VPW included, got so wrapped up in the leaves that we not only lost sight of the forest but sometimes forgot it was there altogether

[Tom Strange]

Insightful and thoughtful response MO (but then we expect that of you! :) )

...also, given the fact that PFAL was also designed to subliminally move the student away from 'established' churches/religions while moving the student toward an elitist attitude about PFAL/TWI...

Edited May 9, 2006 by Tom Strange

[T-Bone]

What the Hey's words are in bold red [whereas the rest of the black text in quotes is What the Hey quoting me and my response below the quotes is in blue text– I tried to organize things nice and neat but it does get kind of confusing – I figured what the heck as long as What the Hey doesn't say WTF].

"…In my opinion, the above method ignores textual research, scholarship, hermeneutics, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit and assumes VPW's theology is the standard of reference.

Fine. That may indeed be your opinion regarding PFAL, but those are not necessarily the facts regarding PFAL. Your statement only makes one aware that you value your opinion(s) more than the textual rexearch, scholarship, and the "illumination of the Holy Spirit (whatever that might mean to you) etc."

I think you're a little confused – so I'll state it differently – I believe VPW's way of figuring out what the original Word of God said was by twisting Scripture through his personal theology [an accusation he fired at translators]. And contrary to what you say – I try to form an opinion BASED ON textual research The New Testament TransLine [/b]by Michael Magill, The Expositor's Greek Testament edited by W. Robertson Nicoll and The New English Translation: Second Beta Edition with 60,237 Translators Notes, from Biblical Studies Press – and also have 34 different translations of the Bible some of which are only the New Testament – and speaking of Greek, why did VPW lie about his study of Greek? That's a whole other subject covered in WordWolf's thread The Way: Living in Wonderland – I even posted a letter on that thread from a school denying VPW ever completed any courses there that he claimed he took! ], scholarship - knowledge adhering to high intellectual standards [like books and papers by authors with legitimate credentials and that know their material because it is their material – not plagiarized], hermeneutics – a branch of theology dealing with the principles governing biblical exegesis and interpretation, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit [John 7:17; II Timothy 2:7; I John 2:27 to cite a few places].

"I also see where Mike pulls his outlandish claims from – like the one about the ancient scriptures being inaccessible & etc.

I am not sure what you mean here by "inaccessible", as anyone can purchase a Strongs or a Youngs Analytical Concordance (there are sources on-line as well) an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Bullinger's Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, Bishop K.C. Pillai's Orientalism of the Bible - i.e., "Light Through an Eastern Window" to name just a few. That hardly makes searching the scriptures to anybody: "inaccessible". But where all these biblical tools fall short is in the FACT that they DO NOT (as VPW sates in PFAL) Compare the scriptures - one word w/ another word - one verse w/ another verse so there is NO CONTRADITION. Only PFAL makes this claim. Mike's claim is that PFAL has already done that job for us, and because of that there is no need for us to: "reinvent the wheel". That doesn't mean one can never do it, it's just that it is no longer necessary for one to do so."

Mike is the one who used the term "inaccessible" – here's the entire statement he made: Mike on May 2 2006, 08:54 AM "The ancient scriptures are not accessible, and the modern man-made reconstructions of them are FAR from definitive, shifting about constantly by the latest theological fads in translation and manuscript rating."

I'll let Mike answer that one for you – I'm waiting myself for his answer… According to the biblical tools you cited comparing verses/words is not a function they feature – simply because of the purpose of their design: for example – an Interlinear – a text of alternating lines in different languages, a Concordance – an alphabetical index of the principal words in a book. Use the right tool for the right job. There's quite a lot of resources available through bookstores that compare verses/words, define words, focus on grammatical, cultural and historical aspects of the Scriptures: Bible Dictionaries, Dictionaries of the Bible Languages, Bible Encyclopedias, Systematic Theologies, Commentaries, specific biblical studies. The reason I left TWI is because of the contradictions I found in some of their doctrine!... It's okay that Mike feels PFAL has done the work for him – I'm not satisfied with such slipshod work. I don't think PFAL is up there with inventing the wheel. PFAL is more like New York potholes – a treacherous zone for any brand of tire.

"From what I've seen so far, Mike's method of getting back to authentic prophecy is an erroneous adaptation of VPW's erroneous method. The key phrase in this statement here, of course, is: "what I've seen so far". That again is one stating their own opinion on the matter. Apparenlty they can't get beyond the "what I've seen so far" which leads them to the conclusion that VPW's method is erroneous. I might ask: How did one arrive at that conclusion when VPW may have used a better microscope than what they may have currently available to them?"

Context, What the Hey – I'm talking about Mike – "From what I've seen so far, Mike's method…" Thinking about VPW's penchant for plagiarism – perhaps you're mistaking a stethoscope for a microscope. He would be able to eavesdrop on other people's ideas.

Edited May 9, 2006 by T-Bone

[Tom Strange]

He's like that a lot T-Bone... oh... and your post was well thought out as well... :)

[dmiller]

Mike's claim is that PFAL has already done that job for us, and because of that there is no need for us to: "reinvent the wheel". That doesn't mean one can never do it, it's just that it is no longer necessary for one to do so."

In my *IMO* --- pfal did just that --- (reinvent the wheel, that is). :)