WhiteDove

I'm off to do other things but I will try to post a sum and substance of the chapter later on. for now, the Chapter was on "A Reformation In Studies Of Biblical Texts " at 16 pages I not about to transcribe it .

Walter has been very busy in his post Way life originally he was on the research team for several projects at Gartmore House. He published a journal for several years on The Acceptable Year of the Lord (The Life and Early Ministry of Jesus Christ.) Later edited into a book , as well as a book A Journey through the Acts and Epistles. He traveled and teaches several Scripture Conferences on various subjects An updated one Things New and Renewed, An introductory seminar on How to Enjoy the Bible, one on Figures of Speech, and I believe some others. Although now grayed he is still the same personable person he was. He enjoys teaching the Bible and smoking his pipe.

My posts arrive when things are distorted into half truths or outright lies, the are not limited to Wierwille or Way doctrines. If someone put words in your mouth I would do the same. It has nothing to do with like or dislike of the person. Although admittedly it is an easier task when the one in question is likeable. Claiming the truth as you point out and providing the written truth are not one in the same ,I provided the factual record and it was wanting.

No it does not, the shoe you described seems to be a different model , you see mine that was offered had a Wierwille model added on it. Now it seems we were discussing what Walter said. Last time I looked they were not the same person. That would make being a Wierwille apologist difficult by reason of the fact that he was not the principle person in the discussion, in fact as I pointed out the supposed quote was not about Wierwille at all but about a researcher. That fails the test by definition of Wierwille apologist. I made no case for Wierwille. Your right I did take the bait, My choice.... that does not change the honesty of the question. I generally respond to misconceptions about me when posted...again ,my choice. That may be your perception not mine I come out in defense of what is true . Truth is truth no matter who may have said it. You wanna label me a apologist for truth........ Fine. Defending truth is not one in the same as defending Wierwille which was the charge. Nor do I believe that every time someone corrects a misstatement that qualifies them as a apologist. In this case I defended the truth of what was stated, who stated it was not the issue, nor was it important, what was ,is that it was restated correctly and truthfully. And as pointed out it had nothing to do with Wierwille at all. At best one could assume I was a Cummins apologist maybe . That would be the difference.

Wrong question............

It may be a question, but it was not an honest one , If I had a dime for every time I have been refered to as such I be a rich man I've lost count how many times I have corrected that idea, it was not a mistake. While in the way on occasion I recall the use of the Amplified Bible in teachings. I own one and use it often.

Well had you thought to post what you did on your own rather than a response to what I stated you might have a case for belief.. as it is your intent was clear..

I agree Oldies but I would have just let John save face despite the truth, and claim faulty memory (on one of his favorite lines no less....) :huh:

This has come up at times so just for ease of referance for future discussions I thought it deserved it's own space. Claim: One of my favorite lines is something W Cummins said about VP's "literal translations according to usage." (I believe the quote is in "The Living word Speaks") Cummins said they often "make no sense when read." Fact: Page 16 The Living Word Speaks A researcher must consider the inherent accuracy of the text and then seek to convey the exact thoughts and meanings of the original in current vernacular. Such a rendering is a literal translation according to usage. *16 Note a researcher- not VPW but, a researcher he was talking about. Then the footnote on *16 which was partially misquoted. 16. A literal translation is a word -for word translation which often makes no sense when read.( note again he did not say VP's translation or VP's literal translation, he said a literal translation which would be any literal there was no mention of VP. (It continues) A literal translation according to usage reproduces the thoughts and meanings of the original, based on the words in the original in relation to the verse, content, remoter context, and to whom it is addressed. ( note again no mention of VPW only what a researcher ,and a literal translation according to usage is. (It continues) It is not a free translation or paraphrase which merely gives the gist of the original. Reading the whole quote we see that Walter was discussing : 1. A researcher only ,not VPW specifically ,could have been himself even as one 2. He never mentioned VPW period in fact anywhere in the quote. 3. He stated What a literal translation was vs a free translation, or a literal translation according to usage. 4. He never stated that VPW translations 'made no sense when read,' he said literal translations (period ) or word for word translations often make no sense when read. 5. He then stated how a literal according to usage is arrived at which did not include as you misstated (it leaves a lot of room to make up what VP meant) anywhere in the definition In conclusion we see that the words were misquoted , and that a person was added in the quote that was not a part of the conversation ,additionally then parts of the quote that were vital to the understanding of the meaning were omitted. In short the finding is.... pure fabrication.

Well as someone who is quick to point out when someone misspeaks I'd have thought you would appreciate it when the truth was posted. Guess not...... I guess what was really said only is important when it supports a rant about TWI. Personally I think a case at times could be made for literals for both sides of the fence. If they were correct or not would depend on each case. But that was not the issue. The issue at hand was What did Walter say? Did he in fact say what John said he did. The evidence was found wanting on several levels. First VP was never a part of the quoted section, second the section was misquoted and partially quoted to alter its meaning and intent. Rather than man up and just admit that it was just made up or at least take the safe road and claim faulty memory for a favorite quote (which it seems if it was a favorite one would have got it right) , the response from the peanut gallery was to accuse the one speaking the truth of being a Wierwille apologist. Really? Name calling? is that the best you have? How second grade, Will you next claim my mom wears army boots too? Speaking of matching theology WW, it must be tough when the facts from print just get in the way of someone's opinion. The mission to have all things TWI bad just can't be defeated, even when the print is staring one in the face. So like a grade schooler hey we'll just call them a name to take the spotlight off our error. Is that supposed to somehow discredit what the book states Not Likely.........

Gee, since I spoke truthfully about what Walter said and John did not I guess you would need to take that up with him Cman. You see qualities exist because they are provable ,not because they agree with your idea of who you like or dislike.

John you as well are entitled to your opinions, God knows you have posted pages of them. But opinions and claiming others made statements they did not are two different things. For the record Again not what Walter said, he said literal translations according to usage are not free translations, no mention of VP in that statement either. The reason being that they are not would be because they include the thoughts and meanings of the original, based on the words in the original in relation to the verse, content, remoter context, and to whom it is addressed. Well another as Oldiesman would say TWI legend put to rest.

You are entitled to your opinion, I addressed the total fabrication that John posted concerning what he claimed Walter said. So when one posts what the truth of what was said ,does that make them a Wierwille apologist? Seems to me that it is being honest, truthful, generally sought after qualities. Unless of course they don't promote your agenda ...then they sorta ruin your your plan to just make s**t up I guess.

Perhaps you should recheck your memory on your quote. Page 16 The Living Word Speaks A researcher must consider the inherent accuracy of the text and then seek to convey the exact thoughts and meanings of the original in current vernacular. Such a rendering is a literal translation according to usage. *16 Note a researcher- not VPW but, a researcher he was talking about. Then the footnote on *16 which you partially misquoted. 16. A literal translation is a word -for word translation which often makes no sense when read.( note again he did not say VP's translation or VP's literal translation, he said a literal translation which would be any literal there was no mention of VP. (It continues) A literal translation according to usage reproduces the thoughts and meanings of the original, based on the words in the original in relation to the verse, content, remoter context, and to whom it is addressed. ( note again no mention of VPW only what a researcher ,and a literal translation according to usage is. (It continues) It is not a free translation or paraphrase which merely gives the gist of the original. Reading the whole quote we see that Walter was discussing : 1. A researcher only ,not VPW specifically ,could have been himself even as one 2. He never mentioned VPW period in fact anywhere in the quote. 3. He stated What a literal translation was vs a free translation, or a literal translation according to usage. 4. He never stated that VPW translations 'made no sense when read,' he said literal translations (period ) or word for word translations often make no sense when read. 5. He then stated how a literal according to usage is arrived at which did not include as you misstated (it leaves a lot of room to make up what VP meant) anywhere in the definition In conclusion we see that you misquoted the section, added a person in the quote that was not there, then left out the parts of the quote that did not explain the rest of the quote in order to arrive at your intended meaning. Speaking of "leaving a lot of room to make up what one meant" it appears you were talking about yourself, as you clearly made up this quote not from what was said but what you wanted it to say.

Dot In your teardrops, I can see my own reflection.... After 13 years one could write a book But who better than to speak of Love than Dylan And I've never gotten used to it, I've just learned to turn it off Either I'm too sensitive ,or else I'm gettin'soft. There are those that worship loneliness, I'm not one of them In this age of fiberglass I'm searching for a gem The crystal ball upon the wall hasn't shown me nothing yet I paid the price of solitude, but at least I'm out of debt.

Today's Mass was a great example of what the Scribes and Pharisees must have looked like in Jesus time. Long slow processions, complete with incense, and screeching opera noise. Ghastly but expensive robes for all to see. Ascending the levels of stairs to rise above the rest of us, just so we know that they are the chosen ones. A bunch of people who think way too highly of themselves. These scriptures come to mind...... Luke 20:46 - "Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and love salutations in the market places and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, Matthew 6:5 - "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. A truly pathetic, disgusting show............

I've seen the film many times have a copy on video, as a matter of fact. Oh and I'm not a passionate defender of TWI/Wierwille theology by the way, just a defender of biblical truth, sometimes they are the same, sometimes not. Let me just check those lyrics again......I must have missed it..... My Jesus, My Savior Lord there is none like You All of my days, I want to praise The wonders of Your mighty love My Comfort, My Shelter Tower of refuge and strength Let every breath, all that I am Never cease to worship You That's the thing Sounds like JESUS is being given the due worship to me, not God. Each to their own BUT lets just be honest about it. It's JESUS WORSHIP..... Now I see Jesus directing worship to the Fatherin the scripture.......... so like big bird says One of these things does not belong with the others.......

X-file Not at all, just how one goes about doing such a thing, but hey you wanted thoughts and by chance I had some extras that day. We probably had this conversation but I don't remember, all this zombie fighting has taken it's toll on the hard drive. I need a memory upgrade. Sorry I missed your call last week but I got your voice mail, I would have answered but I thought it might be an extraterrestrial calling trying to pozesssss my mind through the fiber optic network. Besides I was practicing my song for my Idol day view. Ooh, I bet you're wondering how I knew About you're plans to make me Blue Waving hands with glassy eyes Making me a zombie prize It took me by surprise, I must say, When I found out yesterday. Don't you know that... I heard it through the grapevine Not much longer would I be mine. Oh I heard it through the praise line Oh and I'm just about to lose my mind. Honey, honey yeah. Wow Socks what a close call you had , Quick thinking , all those years of Corps training paid off. Nothing like a good word study a dose of Biblical Thorazine to snap them back to reality. I'm sure they are nice people but then again so was the Creature from the Black Lagoon ,well except for the fish breath.... Hey my motto - When the hands start to waving, a trail I'll be blazing

in the same sense - meaning that it worked every time just as gravity does ......... I believe that God's promises do just that. Christians understand that when God states that something is going to happen , and we believe and trust those words, then we see the results. In that point( in that sense) it is like a law like gravity, perhaps that is what he meant to illustrate. Analogies are not perfect in every point, in the sense that it works consistently just like gravity, in that point only yes it is like the law of gravity. in other points it fails as a analogy. Look today we say Murphy's law, which is neither a phyical law that can be qualified and quantified in a laboratory, nor a legal statute. Do we pick at someone when they say Murphy's law. Nope, we understand the analogy. Only when it's wierwille do we be so stupid as to miss it, or most likely just want something to pick at.

No the third way is that he does not want to be called good or worshiped..... knelt in front of like the man in the story and prayed to. This parable spake Jesus unto them......... John 10:6 It is a parable Parable is used of a story with a hidden meaning, without pressing in every detail. This likeness is generally only in some special point. Parables are used from the resemblance of the one thing to another. The thing may be true or imaginary but the events must be possible or likely to have happened At any rate those that hear must believe that they are possible events, though it is not necessary that the speaker should believe them.. Parables often have a misconception that they are to make things clear or plain ,but in truth they are some of the most difficult sections of scripture often to understand. We have seen from Parables the following: *it is a story with a hidden meaning *It is not pressing in every detail *The likeness is true in one point *It can be imaginary but the events must be possible *The speaker does not have to believe them, but the hearer must believe that they are possible. No he asked the question because he wanted him to undestand that his worship was to be directed to the Father just as Jesus's was. Read vs 36 of John 10 it says son of God not God the son.... So I guess Jesus was confused according to your theory?

Exactly the point , that would be silly wouldn't it ? but some might argue that it was not a law because it had no statute. you understood that was silly. Then again some might argue that it was not a law because it was not qualified and quantified in a laboratory. and that would be equally silly Now wouldn't it? Then again some might say Both seem clearly as you noted ,not what he was talking about. I never met anyone that thought it should be qualified and quantified in a laboratory either by the way................. Not defective , it works in the way it was intended, analogies break down at some point, they are not perfect in all or every point. Says Who? Not my recollection.....

Speaking of 60 AD Timothy was written in 67 -68 AD It does not sound like things were going so well. 2 Timothy 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. 2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. Is it any supprise that they decided that it should be added to the list of fables. I wonder why scripture did not think it important for 60 years to mention it. Why did it show up as important 60 years later?