Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Misquoting Jesus


Belle
 Share

Recommended Posts

So Raf, what you're telling me is that there is an apparent chronological discrepency in these verses:

matt 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

matt 27:36 And sitting down they watched him there;

matt 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

matt 27:38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.

mark 15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

mark 15:26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

mark 15:27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.

luke 23:32 And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.

luke 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

and so you're saying that the time discrepency is that mark and luke say that the two were crucified with him and that matthew says that they were crucified later?

Is that the crux of the matter?

Maybe this will help: The word rendered "then" (apparently the source of the problem) in Matthew is the greek word "tote" -- that word simply means "at that time"

That is true according to Strong, Moulton, and Liddell & Scott.

So that is indicative of the fact that the thieves were there at the same time as Jesus, nothing more.

How about the quantities:

In matthew 27:38 -- both 'one' and 'another' are the greek word heis. Which means the numeral one (1). Same thing in Mark 15. Luke, on the other hand, renders the word 'hos' as both "one" and "the other" in verse 33. (Hos means "this") -- both usages of the word 'hos' are in the accusative, singular, masculine.

So what about heteros and allos? Well, the only relevant place in any of these three accounts where either word is used is in Luke 23:32. The word used is 'heteros.' But folks, use your common sense. And there were two other (of different quality) mischievious [remember my earlier post: malefactor is actually the adjective kakourgos (meaning doing ill, mischievous, knavish)]. led with him...If the word 'allos' was used, it would have implied that Jesus was kakourgos!

The NASB and the RSV have a far better rendering of this verse than the KJV (imo):

(NASB) Two others also, who were criminals, were being led away to be put to death with Him.

(RSV) Two others also, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him.

Am I missing something here? Because I don't see any hard evidence that there was mention of any more than two others crucified with Christ!

Is this another example of Wierwille twisting something...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Raf is right on the chronology. It's pretty simple to see it in the first three gospels.

With John's Gospel it's not just a comma.

John is a little more complicated, because it's not strictly chronological. It has a "flash forward" that summarizes the entire crucifixion scene, and then it details the scene.

In an interlinear you can plainly see the addition of the word "one" to the English text of John where there is no Greek word. This is a place where the KJV translators added a word BUT they did not italicize it. They disgracefully added "one" to the text to line John up with their theology. It seems that other versions kept the word "one" also to keep "in step."

ALSO, with one of the pairs BOTH mocked Jesus, while only ONE in the other pair mocked and the other was meek to Jesus.

.

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Templelady,

This “Four Crucified” topic is VERY useful.

It demonstrates to us all how sloppy all past theologians have been, paying much more attention to tradition and Renaissance art than to the text. The addition of the word “one” to the text is the supreme example of this.

It also demonstrates to GSC readers now just who paid close attention back in their ministry days and who was sloppy in their study of what we were taught in PFAL. These things are elementary, yet many posters here are totally (or partially) in the dark regarding these very simple items. They're all in the PFAL book and the film class.

Mark, your question here shows your bias and your lack of understanding what we were taught. If you come back to PFAL and study it out without such bias you will be very pleasantly surprised. Same to you templelady, and all the others. Look at how much you all forgot or never absorbed!

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Mike is practicing idolatry because he believes PFAL to be God-Breathed (which would probably be a form of bibliolatry), then all peoples who believe the Bible is God-Breathed, are practicing idolatry, or bibliolatry.

Same goes for Jews and the Torah.

Nonesense! If you can't see the difference, any explanation given would be lost to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

I'm saying ... that is the discrepancy pointed to by Wierwille:

In Matthew the two are crucified after the passage of some time.

In Luke the two are led with him at the same time.

Unless there are four people, there appears to be a discrepancy.

I'm not saying that is my position. I'm actually undecided on it. I am saying that this was Wierwille's position.

ALSO, with one of the pairs BOTH mocked Jesus, while only ONE in the other pair mocked and the other was meek to Jesus.

Right. I left that out. Thanks, Mike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raf,

You wrote; "Right. I left that out. Thanks, Mike."

And thank YOU, Raf, for taking me off "ignore" status.

I also appreciate your generally objective approach to things.

Fundamental assumptions are unavoidable in life and everyone MUST have some of them. In Geometry they’re called Postulates. The trick in life is minimizing the number of them we hold, and only holding onto only the most true, elegant, and useful fundamental assumptions.

If you ever decide to experiment with your fundamental assumptions and temporarily hold onto the idea that PFAL is God-breathed as you thumb through the pages you will be able to see more than most with your greater commitment to objectivity.

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I have to do is adopt your point of view for a little while and I'll see things your way?

empire%20strikes%20back.gif

No thanks.

I haven't actually taken you off ignore. I simply read when there's the possibility that you're responding to something I said.

Your postulate has already been proven false. To continue to try to prove it true when it's already been proven false is known in science as futility, and known in rhetoric as insanity.

I'm sure if YOU would adopt the objective approach for which you compliment ME, you would see that.

Edited by Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proving false of my Postulate was done only in the context of another set of another Postulates, which I now find untenable.

I was objective about my present set of Postulates in that prior to 1998 I did not embrace them at all. Objectivity, like an open mind, is useful in searching, but not useful once a desired end is found.

Instead of just shopping and comparing Postulate sets, we can also shop and compare the resulting sets of "theorems" that flow out from from each set of Postulates. This flow of theorems takes much more time and effort and few ever bother. I compared the theorm set flowing from God-breathed PFAl and saw it to be much better than the set flowing from the alternative Postulates.

I'm only using math terminology for the brevity it affords me.

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theorems of PFAL have also been proven false, repeatedly.

Mike, you're exalting a flawed document about the Word of God that document is trying to point you to. You've been doing that for years, to the point that it's seared your brain. You're now unABLE to consider that you might be wrong. If that's your position, fine.

To say what I want to say next would be a shot too cheap even for my feelings toward you, so I will stop here and not respond to any more of your nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sirguessalot,

I got the following brief definition of idolatry from the Catholic Encyclopedia Online:

I think that sums it up pretty well.

The way I understand it, it looks to me like two key ingredients are required for the practice of idolatry:

(1) elevation of something/someone to the level of a God,

(2) then, worshipping that something/someone in place of the true God.

May I add my 2 cents worth here?

Idolatry (by this definition) is a wide blanket that covers a lot

of folks, and/or denominations.

Mike has entered the mix by declaring pfal to be *God-breathed*.

Fine. So be it. But by the same token, Mike has taken single words (from the way magazine) from one paragraph, and linked them to other words (in other paragraphs), and then said ---

SEE -- THIS IS GOD TALKING THROUGH DOCVIC.

He promotes the *hidden messages* found there-in.

I'm not being facetious. He is more than serious about this agenda. While I will agree that there is some good talked about in docvic's teachings, I would never extend myself to the point to link one word in an opening paragraph, to another in a concluding paragraph, FROM THE WAY MAGAZINE,

And then say --- This is God speaking, wake up and listen.

I don't know about you Oldies, but this to me is idolatry -- and by the definition you provided us with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raf,

You wrote: “The theorems of PFAL have also been proven false, repeatedly.”

Only within a constrained context, as I said before. You must adopt a certain set of Postulates in order to humanly prove that. Proof on the flesh level is not absolute. It’s God Who really establishes these things. We must be meek to Him and allow Him to direct our paths to truth. If we trust our own abilities to direct our own paths THAT is the ultimate idolatry.

***

You wrote: “Mike, you're exalting a flawed document about the Word of God that document is trying to point you to. You've been doing that for years, to the point that it's seared your brain. You're now unABLE to consider that you might be wrong. If that's your position, fine.”

It’s flawed in your eyes, not flawed in mine, and we both must always look to God for the ultimate answer.

***

You wrote: “To say what I want to say next would be a shot too cheap even for my feelings toward you, so I will stop here and not respond to any more of your nonsense.”

I appreciate your self discipline here. Had you succumbed it would have had little effect on me and just dragged you down. I'm glad for you here.

***********

dmiller,

You wrote: “Mike has taken single words (from the way magazine) from one paragraph, and linked them to other words (in other paragraphs), and then said --- SEE -- THIS IS GOD TALKING THROUGH DOCVIC.”

Not quite. First I assume (for many complex reasons) that the same way God talked to Isreal us via the prophets of old, He can do the same thing today and He did with VPW. Then I apply something fundamental we were taught: that in order to see the truth regarding any topic we must examine not just one place where that topic occurs, but ALL the places where it occurs in God’s communication to us through the writings of the men he selects. I rightfully draw upon multiple locations in Dr’s writings to get the whole story. It’s wrong to NOT do this.

***

You wrote: “He promotes the *hidden messages* found there-in.”

We can see in the Old Testament how there were hidden messages in the way God had men prophesy about the future. God can do the same thing today. There’s nothing wrong with God having more than one meaning impregnating a text. Humans do it sometimes; why can’t God?

***

You wrote: “I'm not being facetious. He is more than serious about this agenda. While I will agree that there is some good talked about in docvic's teachings, I would never extend myself to the point to link one word in an opening paragraph, to another in a concluding paragraph, FROM THE WAY MAGAZINE,”

I’m not quite sure why it is that you have a phobia about the magazine form of Dr’s writings versus the book form. Text is text. What would you say to some nutty traditionalist who criticized you for reading a KJV Bible in book form and not in the original scroll form it was “intended” to be read from?

Please define your exact problem with the magazine form of Dr’s text so that I can help you dispense with this silly problem of yours.

***

You have admitted that there are problems with the received texts and their exact meaning in English. You have somewhat admitted that your solution to this problem is to wing it and hope you’re right. Don’t you think THAT is a form of idolatry, a form of self worship in that you expect God to respect your ability to wing it?

After my years of winging it and trusting in my own abilities I decided to submit to a form of God’s Word outside my own abilities. I have humbled myself to accept what I believe is bigger than me. Longer ago I was doing much the same kind of submission with the KJV and the abilities of the translators and text scholars, but I saw that break down. Now I see, with the best of my abilities, a stronger, more accurate form of God’s Word to submit to.

Dmiller, what do YOU submit to that’s bigger than you? Do you think there’s an authority that’s bigger than you, or are YOU the god in your life?

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raf,

You wrote: “The theorems of PFAL have also been proven false, repeatedly.”

Only within a constrained context, as I said before.

[using the standards set out in PFAL, PFAL has been proven less than God-breathed.

Since THEY never said it WAS, this is hardly a problem.

Unless you decide to add that meaning on later, of course...]

You must adopt a certain set of Postulates in order to humanly prove that.

[believing its internal testimony is sufficient.]

Proof on the flesh level is not absolute.

[ The mathematical sentence " A and not-A " is ALWAYS false,

and the "pfal writings" contain at least one direct contradiction.

Not a problem for man's books, but-according to pfal- it makes your

whole Bible fall to pieces.]

It’s God Who really establishes these things. We must be meek to Him and allow Him to direct our paths to truth. If we trust our own abilities to direct our own paths THAT is the ultimate idolatry.

[Right. And trusting only ourselves leads to things like finding "hidden messages"

and DEMANDING the overt meaning of a sentence is WRONG.]

***

You wrote: “Mike, you're exalting a flawed document about the Word of God that document is trying to point you to. You've been doing that for years, to the point that it's seared your brain. You're now unABLE to consider that you might be wrong. If that's your position, fine.”

It’s flawed in your eyes, not flawed in mine, and we both must always look to God for the ultimate answer.

[it contains errors, plus internal contradictions.

In God's eyes as well as man's eyes, that means it's flawed.]

***

You wrote: “To say what I want to say next would be a shot too cheap even for my feelings toward you, so I will stop here and not respond to any more of your nonsense.”

I appreciate your self discipline here. Had you succumbed it would have had little effect on me and just dragged you down. I'm glad for you here.

[i. however, reserve the right to treat you in any manner I deem warranted,

to the limits of the board. I'm operating with different priorities than he is..]

***********

dmiller,

You wrote: “Mike has taken single words (from the way magazine) from one paragraph, and linked them to other words (in other paragraphs), and then said --- SEE -- THIS IS GOD TALKING THROUGH DOCVIC.”

Not quite.

[Actually, that IS it. But, we'll keep going.]

First I assume (for many complex reasons) that the same way God talked to Isreal us via the prophets of old, He can do the same thing today and He did with VPW.

[Which, of course, is error, but not the biggest one here.]

Then I apply something fundamental we were taught: that in order to see the truth regarding any topic we must examine not just one place where that topic occurs, but ALL the places where it occurs in God’s communication to us through the writings of the men he selects. I rightfully draw upon multiple locations in Dr’s writings to get the whole story. It’s wrong to NOT do this.

[According to the Orange Book, over 85% of Scripture explains itself in the verse right

where it's written. According to Mike, the Orange Book is Scripture.

Mike does NOT take the overt meaning of even 85%, let alone "over" that.

It's always hidden messages assembled from scattered pieces.]

***

You wrote: “He promotes the *hidden messages* found there-in.”

We can see in the Old Testament how there were hidden messages in the way God had men prophesy about the future.

[The prophecies were overt. The MEANINGS were unclear.

Mikean pfal has its "prophecies" hidden cabalistically.]

God can do the same thing today. There’s nothing wrong with God having more than one meaning impregnating a text. Humans do it sometimes; why can’t God?

[secret messages were always a hallmark of Gnosticism.]

***

You wrote: “I'm not being facetious. He is more than serious about this agenda. While I will agree that there is some good talked about in docvic's teachings, I would never extend myself to the point to link one word in an opening paragraph, to another in a concluding paragraph, FROM THE WAY MAGAZINE,”

I’m not quite sure why it is that you have a phobia about the magazine form of Dr’s writings versus the book form.

[That's not what he said, but you commonly mistake

"what is written" and add new meanings, so this is not news.]/b]

Text is text. What would you say to some nutty traditionalist who criticized you for reading a KJV Bible in book form and not in the original scroll form it was “intended” to be read from?

[i'd say the imaginary person was using the wrong analogy.]/b]

Please define your exact problem with the magazine form of Dr’s text so that I can help you dispense with this silly problem of yours.

[Please reread his post more carefully. Hopefully, you can see past your silly

problem and get the real meaning.]

***

You have admitted that there are problems with the received texts and their exact meaning in English. You have somewhat admitted that your solution to this problem is to wing it and hope you’re right.

[That's a fictionalized account of what he said.

But, in Mikean pfal, that's how it's done.

All text must be fictionalized and rewritten.]

Don’t you think THAT is a form of idolatry, a form of self worship in that you expect God to respect your ability to wing it?

[if he did wing it, he might have a problem.]

After my years of winging it and trusting in my own abilities I decided to submit to a form of God’s Word outside my own abilities.

[so did the rest of us. But we picked a Godly one.]

I have humbled myself to accept what I believe is bigger than me.

[Gulliver may believe the Lilliputians are bigger than him,

but it doesnt affect their actual heights.]

Longer ago I was doing much the same kind of submission with the KJV and the abilities of the translators and text scholars, but I saw that break down.

[if your talents were less meager, your heart more dedicated,

you would have seen NO break down.]

Now I see, with the best of my abilities, a stronger, more accurate form of God’s Word to submit to.

[That doesnt say much for the best of your abilities.

Slapping a label on something does NOT change its substance.]

Dmiller, what do YOU submit to that’s bigger than you? Do you think there’s an authority that’s bigger than you, or are YOU the god in your life?

[Mike's Table of Challenge.

I offered to answer it fully in exchange for him actually addressing a few of the

ACTUAL ERRORS of pfal-his choice.

These are things that expose his error.

Rather than try to address what he can't, he instead claimed he was unable

to see the relevance of them.

Perhaps he IS unable.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what do YOU submit to that’s bigger than you? Do you think there’s an authority that’s bigger than you, or are YOU the god in your life?

why is this a question?

is it biblical?

where are your reasonings for this?

chapter and verse please

or just what you may think

got the time for an answer mike?

Edited by CM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why does something have to be bigger then you to serve it

i serve people at work but they are not bigger then me

where do you get this idea from

why do you insist on it

it says my thoughts are higher then your thoughts

does that make it bigger?

what is bigger then you mike?

you will be the same size that you serve

no bigger no smaller

you are limited to yourself

you will not be able to go any further then your own mind

there is nothing bigger then you for you

your vain imaginations have gotten you no where close to

the potential that is dormant within you

you claim that "dr" has the revelation to follow

you don't even know what you are saying

"dr" spit in the face of his "revelations"

will you do the same when the time comes?

cuz it will mike

kicking and screaming you may protest

but you will die the death

you are no exception

you probably don't even know what i'm talking about

no matter you will know soon enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

I'm saying ... that is the discrepancy pointed to by Wierwille:

In Matthew the two are crucified after the passage of some time.

In Luke the two are led with him at the same time.

Unless there are four people, there appears to be a discrepancy.

I'm not saying that is my position. I'm actually undecided on it. I am saying that this was Wierwille's position.

Right. I left that out. Thanks, Mike.

Well, I don't see the discrepancy. It seems to me that it was a non-issue that Wierwille could use to exalt his position and make himself appear to have gotten his patented knowledge that hadn't been revealed since the first century...the crux of the PFALoter's belief system.

This has probably been done several times before, so bear with me here:

Let's see if I understand it correctly,

Wierwille does the following in the piffle class:

  • He calls into question early in the piffle class a teaching pretty well universally accepted
    • One that is pretty well universally accepted by Christianity
    • One that has a very identifiable icon associated with it
    • An icon that has been seen and identified with the event by almost the entire population of the US

    [*]He then proceeds to rip apart that teaching

    • He uses an English translation that is almost (now) 500 years old to do so. The effects of the use of that translation are:
      • The language is archaic, not familiar to modern English speakers, and is subject to misapplication
      • The translation is known to have several serious errors in it
      • Those errors and archaic usages are pointed out, where convenient, but the pointing out of them allows for Wierwille's interpretation to be inserted as he chooses

      [*]He selectively refers back to the Greek terms used by the authors

      • He confuses the students by pointing out the difference between two greek words that are often rendered as the same english word in that archaic translation of the Bible
        • Confusing, because only one of those terms is used in that context and not the other
        • Confusing, because he doesn't refer back to the proper antecedent for the word that is used

        [*]He doesn't, on the other hand, refer back to a greek word that was at the core of the apparent temporal anomaly that caused the 'apparent contradiction' that he was trying to 'solve.'

        [*]He also mentions the difference between two english words used to describe those who were crucified with Christ

        • Note that he doesn't go back to the greek there, either. He just gives the 'translation'
        • In giving this 'translation,' he doesn't bother to mention that the words are different parts of speech (one was a noun -- an object; one was an adjective -- a word used to describe an object)

        [*]He calls into question the use of punctuation and points out, correctly, that punctuation was not present in the original manuscripts. He does this to show that the numbers may have been rendered incorrectly in the translation.

        • But he doesn't refer the students back to the original greek here, either, where the numbers are clearly identified
        • He doesn't mention that in two gospel accounts, a numeral is translated as both 'one' and 'another'
        • He doesn't mention in the third gospel account that the preposition used was clearly used in the singular number

    [*]The vast majority of the students of the piffle class are simply not Greek scholars. Those who may have taken some classes as the result of being enrolled in a religious high school or college (and who might have been exposed to some greek or some of the little tidbits that were thrown out) would likely have an incomplete knowledge or one that was fogged by time.

    • Thus bringing up the little tidbits (uncial versus cursive, punctuation in the manuscripts, heteros versus allos, etc.) would tend to impress the listener
    • All to bring up a sense of gravitas to the speaker

    [*]The probable effects:

    • A pretty well universal, but trivial, teaching is called into question.
      • This establishes the gravitas of the speaker to the fairly uncritical student
      • The student is also left with the thought, "what else was I taught incorrectly?"

      [*]The uncritical student is then going to pay a little more heed to subsequent lessons of the teacher, rendering them more vulnerable.


      Sorry for the length of this, btw, but I have only a little more to say.

      I remember when I went through the piffle class that, during a break, the class coordinator passed around a copy of Bullinger's Companion Bible and showed us Appendix 164 with that now very familiar grainy picture:

      CALT_2391_1077015012842_ploubezre_croix.jpg5croix_110_170.jpg

      800px-FR-22211_cinqcroix01.jpg

      Now, let me quote a couple of accounts the locals have about the 5 crosses:

      five Crosses, located at the locality "Ar Pemp Croaz", at the crossroads road of Kerfons. This monument is composed of a large cross (XVème or XVIème century), alongside of four smaller crosses (of the Average Age). One sees, in the vicinity, of the traces of the Roman way which went from Carhaix in Yaudet. These crosses have apparently were gathered on only one support, probably about 1728

      Google translated page: here. Original (in french) here.


      The monument of the five crosses is composed of a large cross (XV 2nd or XVI 2nd century), surrounded of four smaller and older. Oldest of all, which is also most massive, is a pattée cross of X 2nd century and comprises reasons carved on its reverse. It also comprises the date, "1728", it is probably the year when they were joined together on the same support according to the local tradition, this monument would have been high in commemoration of a combat during which the inhabitants would have overcome the English. Actually, a vice-chancellor gathered these crosses at the beginning of the XX 2nd century to save them destruction.

      Google translation here. Original (in french) here.


      Keeping in mind that Brittany is a very Catholic area of France, and looking at the color pictures, which explanation seems more feasible?

      One other thing, the five crosses that are made on an altar when it is consecrated are symbolic of the five wounds of Christ...no more...

      Sorry for the length of the post, folks...

      on edit, to fix the bottom pic so it wouldn't screw up the whole page

Edited by markomalley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

In fairness to VPW, I don't recall him mentioning the punctuation difference in the gospel of John. That was just me.

The use of the five crosses pic always bugged me. After telling us not to rely on art to prove our points, TWI relies on art to prove Wierwille's point.

Now we know the truth: the monument was never intended to be a representation of the crucifixion. It's not even one monument!

Good catch.

By the way, on the heteros v. allos issue: has anyone ever found any scholarship indicating heteros means only two involved while allos means more than two? I mean, aside from Wierwille? Genuine question. I'm just curious to know where he got the definition from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

In fairness to VPW, I don't recall him mentioning the punctuation difference in the gospel of John. That was just me.

The use of the five crosses pic always bugged me. After telling us not to rely on art to prove our points, TWI relies on art to prove Wierwille's point.

Now we know the truth: the monument was never intended to be a representation of the crucifixion. It's not even one monument!

Good catch.

By the way, on the heteros v. allos issue: has anyone ever found any scholarship indicating heteros means only two involved while allos means more than two? I mean, aside from Wierwille? Genuine question. I'm just curious to know where he got the definition from.

You know, now that you mention it, I think you're right...wasn't the punctuation thing from the "today you will be with me in paradise" issue?

Another thing to show a misquote...but that's for later.

Thanks for the nice words.

(Of course, we will be informed by some that the modern pics are just foregeries :asdf::asdf: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On "the four crucified" and the gospel of John, Wierwille's point was that the word "one" (on either side one) was not in the text. On that he appears to have been correct, from the few interlinears I've seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, on the heteros v. allos issue: has anyone ever found any scholarship indicating heteros means only two involved while allos means more than two? I mean, aside from Wierwille? Genuine question. I'm just curious to know where he got the definition from.

Wierwille got it by revelation as it happened to be snowing in the summertime, while he was reading Bullinger, of course:

http://www.biblestudysite.com/124.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He got it from Bullinger, but he mixed up Bullinger's distinctions. He agreed with Bullinger regarding number, but not kind. Wierwille said that heteros indicated two of the same kind, whereas allos indicated different kinds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my! Is that right? (checking)

Bullinger's writing never was very clear. (I used to joke that the easiest way to fall asleep is reading "How to Enjoy the Bible." WordWolf and I were going to write a follow-up: "How to Enjoy How to Enjoy the Bible").

Edited by Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On "the four crucified" and the gospel of John, Wierwille's point was that the word "one" (on either side one) was not in the text. On that he appears to have been correct, from the few interlinears I've seen.

actually, if you take a look at my notes above, you'll find out that the word 'heis' is used in both Matthew and Mark and that 'hos' is used in the singular in Luke.

You can check for yourself at www.zhubert.com (really nice interface btw)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'LG':

"He got it from Bullinger, but he mixed up Bullinger's distinctions. He agreed with Bullinger regarding number, but not kind. Wierwille said that heteros indicated two of the same kind, whereas allos indicated different kinds."

=====================

IIRC,

in one place, vpw made that mistake

(heteros of the same kind, allos of a different kind)

and in another place, did NOT make that mistake

(allos of the same kind, heteros of a different kind)

In the same place he made that mistake, he used Bullinger's (incorrect)

distinction of number.

=====

Me,

I always remembered them correctly referencing kind,

and ignored his numerical explanation which seemed anomalous.

The distinction was clear WITHOUT that, and adding

numerical meaning fogged it needlessly.

(Later study showed Bullinger just made it up OR SOMETHING.)

I found the easiest way to keep them clear was in Galatians 1,

where Paul chides them for turning to "another" (heteros) gospel

which was not "another" (allo).

In other words, they turned to a different gospel that was not of

the same type. (Which is redundantly redundant, but that's

fine in language, especially non-contemporary language.)

=======

Oh,

and that book would have been

"How to Enjoy 'How to Enjoy the Bible' " with the additional

markers to note we meant the other book. :biglaugh:

====

I checked: part of the problem with HtEtB is the tiny print.

I've read chapters online-after enlarging the text-and they're

not as taxing to read like that. Then again, I still recommend

a chapter at a time.

=====

BTW, Bullinger's notes included a comment that he thought

that some churches were built with a cross in each of the

4 corners, and that this was supposed to symbolize the

4 crucified. Supposing they WERE built that way, it might

have simply been they were going to have 4 corners, then

added a cross to each, period. There need not be any more

detailed reason than that.

Mind you, I'm just saying the 4 crosses in the architecture

are proof of nothing. I'm not convinced one way or the

other of one side's correctness, but I'm paying attention.

(Mark, feel free to make your case, but please address the

objections more specifically. You summarized things to

briefly, which looks like you glossed over the objections.

If you have a stronger case, it's better served with more

detail-please elaborate when you have time.)

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

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...