T-Bone

No big deal…I just don’t like it when someone tries to railroad me without sufficient evidence or good reasons.

And kids, that’s how you can try to derail a thread by causing a dis-track-shun

Uh oh you used the “F” word

Nowhere cuz it’s wierwille’s mystery train

A likely story… “My concluding then was not conclusive.” that’s gotta be a figure of speech in some universe

Reminds me of that malodorous verse from the Translation of the Ancient PerShonta Text: “For this purpose was I flushed down the toilet”

Are you aware of how YOU CONTRADICT YOUR OWN TESTIMONY . Just 4 hours ago, you said “I haven't even read 5% of it yet, not even to the point where she took the class, and am in no big hurry to finish.” But in reposting what you said in March of 2018 you said, “I have it and am slowly reading it.My first objection, though, is how she objected to the idea that "the Bible interprets itself." I find that objection very dim witted, even when pumped up with detail like with the posters that attacked it 15 years ago here… ...The phrase "The Bible interprets itself" is an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea. She did not do that justice IMO. The criticism this idea got here 15 years ago I thought was similarly lacking. My impression was that she was leading uninformed readers into thinking God is supposed to be mysterious, an old Catholic idea. Maybe her book will get better later.” ~ ~ ~ ~ So how can it be in 2018 you had read enough in Undertow, that you could conclude she didn’t accurately represent the idea that the Bible interprets itself and that she was misleading uninformed readers – when you just admitted you’re not even to the point in Undertow when she took the class? Seems to me you’re making stuff up because you haven’t even read it at all…I’ve actually read Undertow several times – and you’re just guessing at the how and the when of watershed moments as her story unfolds. It looks to me like you're trying to insinuate yourself into a thread topic you don't agree with - just so you can spew out your pro-PFAL propaganda...I told you earlier it's okay to disagree, but it would be nice if you articulated WHY you disagree - instead of making up nonsense like this. I find it hard to believe you really do have an analytical mind – that you’re an independent thinker - like you claim you were back when you checked out some of wierwille’s teachings before you bought into his stuff. That would have meant you read through his stuff and/or took PFAL beforehand – before coming to the conclusion he was right on everything. What it looks like to me is that your cognitive skills are so unreliable that you do not want to risk looking at information which could threaten your belief system which is built upon wierwille’s PFAL-house-of-cards.

That reminds me – when I was a freshman in high school – I’d bring the French dialog book home and practice out loud. My older brother once said to me “you speak French like a Spanish cow.” Now that I’m older and wiser – I realize he had made an insult wrapped up inside of a rebuff…I mean realistically a Spanish cow would have to study abroad…oh wait…hmmmmmm…cinq minutes de plus, s’il vous plait…yeah - you know what? maybe it could work if the broad was a mademoiselle.

Here’s another example of Jesus interpreting the Scriptures: 14 Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15 He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him. 16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” 20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” Luke 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ Here’s an even more dramatic account of the resurrected Christ explaining the Scriptures to just two believers walking on the road to Emmaus: 13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him. 17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?” They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 19 “What things?” he asked. “About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.” 25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. 28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So, he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?” Luke 24

Normally I’d say someone who makes a crack like that is full of Shonta…but since you snuck it in with sLeeping in tongues - also known as automatic-praying – all reproof and correction will be held in abstinence absentia Abercrombie & Fitch authoritarianism Aleutian Islands Alaska…yeah that’s the ticket…lottery drawing for who gets browbeaten will be held in the Bay of Abeyance in Alaska…what? Why not Virginia? Idaho I’ll Alaska…imagine a GPS system that locates itself…scratch that – I think that’s what it does…but HOW?

I think a better case can be made that the Bible must be interpreted by the reader. That does not mean it’s entirely left up to the reader to figure everything out for himself or herself. Since the Bible was written a long time ago in several languages, across generations, cultures, political settings, etc. of necessity a student of the Bible – unless they were born with the knowledge and experiences of everything in the Bible – the student of the Bible will have to refer to legitimate sources who have expertise in the Biblical languages, cultures, sociological settings, worldviews, theological themes, etc. A case in point is in Acts – with Philip meeting up with the Ethiopian: 26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” 27 So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (which means “queen of the Ethiopians”). This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah the prophet. 29 The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.” 30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. 31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So, he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading: “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth.” 34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. Acts 8

If your current posts are any reflection of your cognitive skills - it seems to me - contrary to what you believe about yourself, that you were duped just like the rest of us were - but YOU have failed to escape from that mental prison.

For some reason I have a hard time believing you worked anything out on your own independent of wierwille’s leading you on. I’ve noticed you often use that as a ploy when others admit how they were tricked in PFAL. Your claim of “the Bible interpreting itself is a beautiful way of etc…” appears to be a drowning man will clutch at anything to save himself even a floating straw.

Falling back into your old habits of napping during PFAL zzzZZZ ZZzzz

That’s actually a bad thing - because it’s a false claim - the Bible does NOT interpret itself . wierwille used that false claim to trick students into believing his interpretation of the Bible is the only correct interpretation.

That’s right - and you still have NOT done that. To document where you have been diversionary on this thread would incorporate just about every one of your posts… soooooooo how about YOU document where YOU have shown evidence that is compatible with your theory.

You’re being diversionary by attempting to distract others with your nonsense. You can disagree with the starter post and any other post you want to . It would be nice if you would contribute something that makes sense. Disagreement is great in the Socratic method because it gets down to the essentials. Diversions suck because it’s a chaotic method which attempts to confuse others on what the essential issues are. Ha ! To characterize the intent of Grease Spot like being in lockstep in the way corps is a hilarious distortion. Even funnier because it’s coming from YOU who was never in the corps! Ha ha ha ha! There is no forced agreement on Grease Spot . There is freedom to think and choose a response. Your comic routine reminds of someone who is an election-denier but has no evidence for their assertion.

The difference here is that every poster on this thread so far - EXCEPT YOU - have stated valid reasons, anecdotal testimony and hard evidence (like statements right out of PFAL) as to why PFAL sucks. The problem with YOUR story that claims PFAL does not suck comes off like a make believe alternate reality tale. You offer NO proof - NO valid reasons for believing YOUR story other than claiming how much PFAL has “blessed “ you and tall tales of the 2nd wave of returning to PFAL has started.

Great point! it seems like he’s doing the same diversionary tactics he does on the NT canon thread.

Lies, titles and bare oh my !

T-Bone's response: why does someone poking holes in wierwille's claim "the Bible interprets itself" shut you down? T-Bone's response: in other words, if you followed the cult-leader's goofy instructions your little world was at peace. T-Bone's response: on the contrary - it seems I can recall PFAL a lot better than you - and I can tell that most of the time you bluff your way through saying we forgot stuff because when you try to "re-teach" it to us it's all twisted up...I have all the PFAL books 4 feet away from my desk where I'm typing right now - and don't even have to check them - because I recall them better than you do...my 2 years in residence was mainly cult-leaders drilling PFAL into our heads! T-Bone's response: your statement is confusing - author and writer are the same...that makes the Bible a co-authored book T-Bone's response: it wasn't "promised" in PFAL - it was CLAIMED in PFAL...how do you know when you've discovered God's interpretation of His own words? What if it's your own interpretation or your own bias... you need to take another look at II Peter 1:20, 21 again - I'm not sure how you can miss it - it says "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."...that sure looks like co-authorship to me, and it does NOT address readers interpreting the Bible...it talks about the prophecy did not come about by the prophet's own interpretation of things! T-Bone's response: do you realize how stupid that sounds? then why were the original manuscripts needing to be translated into other languages? Why didn't God just demand everyone learn Hebrew? Then no translation needed for OT...or go with S. Aramaic or Koine Greek...come on, God pick a language and run with it! T-Bone's response: quit moving the goalposts! It's the same exact baloney in written form, video or audio! There's no nuance of baloney - when baloney is the only ingredient...come on - just face the music - wierwille was a con artist - and you bought into his baloney 100% - and you've invested so much now you're afraid to admit you've been conned. T-Bone's response: this sounds like something a 5-year-old would make up. Do you even realize how silly this sounds? T-Bone's response: really? YOU know what the author knew? HOW did you know that? T-Bone's response: you're assuming God has hidden messages like you claim wierwille's teachings have. Personally, I'm glad God doesn't have a hidden agenda and He doesn't dodge our prayer requests and He doesn't formulate convoluted insane doctrines the way you seem to think He does...I'm sorry to say this but the god you talk about seems weird, mean, amoral, confused and dispassionate... T-Bone's response: Hold up! Hold up!!! stop the presses! would you please explain this complex idea in LONG FORM. In other words, expand the extremely abbreviated method so I can see in glorious detail how this method works. For some reason I'm reminded of school days and how math teachers often caught cheaters who may have copied answers off someone. the teacher asks the cheater to show them their work...have the student write out the formulas and plug in the variables on the quiz and see if they can actually do it. I find it odd that you say Penworks did not give a fair or accurate assessment of wierwille's claim that the Bible interprets itself - and yet you mischaracterize her point that it's up to the reader to interpret what they are reading...The glove is on the other foot, it seems to me YOU ARE the ONE wanting to lead uninformed readers into thinking the Bible is a mysterious book and one NEEDS pope wierwille to interpret it for them...(maybe wierwille was a closet-Roman Catholic - he sure liked to pontificate ) T-Bone's response: You know what? I doubt if you've even read Undertow. So, you know what you can skip? Pushing this baloney any further. ~ ~ ~ ~ Whether in the quotes or out of the quotes I know not

Interesting – Mike's critique here is similar to the obfuscating response he gave me in 2018 I asked him on March 27th of 2018 if he read Undertow - see my post > here and Mike replied the same day that he was reading it > here note the nonsensical critique of Undertow – Mike said, “The phrase The Bible interprets itself" is an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea. She did not do that justice IMO” I find this hilarious - the idea that "the Bible interprets itself" is the polar opposite of even an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea...there's nothing to it! the idea is an abbreviation for nonsense.

What an awesome point about a book that is divine/human coauthored!

68. freedom is held hostage by all-or-nothing thinking A. One of our greatest assets is the ability to think and choose a response. FYI – reason # 68 of why PFAL sucks was inspired by the posts of Nathan_Jr, FredGrant, Chockfull, WordWolf and Penworks…just fessin’ up to my plagiarism … and if you think that’s bad wait till you get to what I stole from the internet bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha In PFAL, wierwille suggests there are only two options to what “no Scripture is of private interpretation” means. This PFAL session is a great example of what an incompetent plagiarist does. wierwille stole and mangled an idea from Bullinger. In Bullinger’s book “How to Enjoy the Bible” what Bullinger says regarding the phrase “of any private interpretation”, is that the little word “of” is genitive of origin – and is simply saying Scripture wasn’t CONCEIVED by anyone’s imagination or personal interpretation. Bullinger goes on from there to cover some basic hermeneutics – which is the study of the methodological principles of interpretation of the Bible. I believe Bullinger got that part right. For whatever dumb and deceitful reason wierwille pivoted on the word “of” – and since I’m no longer hypnotized by wierwille’s dramatic word fvckery - it’s just about impossible to make any sense out of what he was saying. His usage is a very awkward contortion to have it mean prophecy should not be taken up by private interpretation, or it should not be associated with one’s own interpretation. ( * see footnotes on the word “of” below). ~ ~ ~ ~ Here's some excerpts from commentaries on II Peter 1:20 (and I have the hyperlink at the end of the excerpts so you can read them for yourself) Is of any private interpretation - the word rendered “interpretation” occurs nowhere else in the New Testament; but the cognate verb occurs in Mark 4:34, where it is translated “expound.” There can be little doubt that “interpretation,” or “solution,” is the right rendering here…The main question however, is the meaning of the word rendered “private,” which may also mean “its own.” Hence three explanations are possible. The term may refer (1) to the recipients of the prophecies—that we may not expound prophecy according to our own fancy; or (2) to the utterers of the prophecies—that the prophets had not the power of expounding their own prophecies; or (3) to the prophecies themselves—that no prophecy comes to be of its own interpretation, i.e., no prophecy explains itself. The guide to the right explanation is 2Peter 1:21, which gives the reason why “no prophecy of the scripture,” &c. This consideration excludes (3); for 2Peter 1:21 yields no sense as showing why prophecy does not interpret itself. Either of the other two explanations may be right. (1) If prophecy came “by the will of man,” then it might be interpreted according to man’s fancy. But it did not so come; consequently, the interpretation must be sought elsewhere—viz., at the same source from which the prophecy itself proceeded. (2) If the prophets spoke just as they pleased, they would be the best exponents of what they meant. But they spoke under divine influence, and therefore need not know the import of their own words. Prophecy must be explained by prophecy and by history, not by the individual prophet. The whole body of prophecy, “the prophetic word” (2Peter 1:19), is our lamp in the wilderness, not the private dicta of any one seer. In modern phraseology, interpretation must be comparative and scientific. This view is strengthened by comparing 1Peter 1:10-12, where it is stated that the prophets did not know how or when their own predictions would be fulfilled. Possibly this passage is meant to refer to 1Peter 1:10-12, and if so, we have a mark of genuineness; a forger would have made the reference more clear. If the coincidence is accidental, this also points in the same direction; in any case, the coincidence is worth noting… …It would be easy to show that some of these opinions are absurd, and that none of them are sustained by the fair interpretation of the language used, and by the drift of the passage. The more correct interpretation, as it seems to me, is that which supposes that the apostle teaches that the truths which the prophets communicated were not originated by themselves; were not of their own suggestion or invention; were not their own opinions, but were of higher origin, and were imparted by God; and according to this the passage may be explained, "knowing this as a point of first importance when you approach the prophecies, or always bearing this in mind, that it is a great principle in regard to the prophets, that what they communicated "was not of their own disclosure;" that is, was not revealed or originated by them." That this is the correct interpretation will be apparent from the following considerations: (1) It accords with the design of the apostle, which is to produce an impressive sense of the importance and value of the prophecies, and to lead those to whom he wrote to study them with diligence. This could be secured in no way so well as by assuring them that the writings which he wished them to study did not contain truths originated by the human mind, but that they were of higher origin. (2) this interpretation accords with what is said in the following verse and is the only one of all those proposed that is consistent with that, or in connection with which that verse will have any force. In that verse 2 Peter 1:21, a reason is given for what is said here: "For (γὰρ gar) the prophecy came not in old time "by the will of man,"" etc. But this can be a good reason for what is said here only on the supposition that the apostle meant to say that what they communicated was not originated by themselves; that it was of a higher than human origin; that the prophets spake "as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." This fact was a good reason why they should show profound respect for the prophecies, and study them with attention. But how could the fact that "they were moved by the Holy Ghost" be a reason for studying them, if the meaning here is that the prophets could not understand their own language, or that the prophecy could be understood only by the event, or that the prophecy had a double meaning, etc.? If the prophecies were of Divine origin, then "that" was a good reason why they should be approached with reverence and should be profoundly studied. (3) this interpretation accords as well, to say the least, with the fair meaning of the language employed, as either of the other opinions proposed. The word rendered "interpretation" (ἐπίλυσις epilusis) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means "solution" (Robinson's Lexicon), "disclosure," (Prof. Stuart on the Old Testament, p. 328,) "making free (Passow,)" with the notion that what is thus released or loosed was before bound, entangled obscure. The verb from which this word is derived (ἐπιλύω epiluō) means, "to let loose upon," as dogs upon a hare, (Xen. Mem. 7, 8; ib 9, 10;) to loose or open letters; to loosen a band; to loose or disclose a riddle or a dark saying, and then to enlighten, illustrate, etc. - Passow. It is twice used in the New Testament. Mark 4:34, "he expounded all things to his disciples"; Acts 19:39, "It shall be determined in a lawful assembly." The verb would be applicable to loosing anything which is bound or confined, and thence to the explanation of a mysterious doctrine or a parable, or to a disclosure of what was before unknown. The word, according to this, in the place before us, would mean the disclosure of what was before bound, or retained, or unknown; either what had never been communicated at all, or what had been communicated obscurely; and the idea is, "no prophecy recorded in the Scripture is of, or comes from, any exposition or disclosure of the will and purposes of God by the prophets themselves." It is not a thing of their own, or a private matter originating with themselves, but it is to be traced to a higher source. If this be the true interpretation, then it follows that the prophecies are to be regarded as of higher than any human origin; and then, also, it follows that this passage should not be used to prove that the prophets did not understand the nature of their own communications, or that they were mere unconscious and passive instruments in the hand of God to make known his will. Whatever may be the truth on those points, this passage proves nothing in regard to them, any mare than the fact that a minister of religion now declares truth which he did not originate, but which is to be traced to God as its author, proves that he does not understand what he himself says. It follows, also, that this passage cannot be adduced by the Papists to prove that the people at large should not have free access to the word of God, and should not be allowed to interpret it for themselves. It makes no affirmation on that point, and does not even contain any "principle" of which such a use can be made; for: (1) Whatever it means, it is confined to "prophecy;" it does not embrace the whole Bible. (2) whatever it means, it merely states a fact; it does not enjoin a duty. It states, as a fact, that there was something about the prophecies which was not of private solution, but it does not state that it is the duty of the church to prevent any private explanation or opinion even of the prophecies. (3) it says nothing about "the church" as empowered to give a public or authorized interpretation of the prophecies. There is not a hint, or an intimation of any kind, that the church is intrusted with any such power whatever. There never was any greater perversion of a passage of Scripture than to suppose that this teaches that any class of people is not to have free access to the Bible. The effect of the passage, properly interpreted, should be to lead us to study the Bible with profound reverence, as having a higher than any human origin, not to turn away from it as if it were unintelligible, nor to lead us to suppose that it can be interpreted only by one class of men. The fact that it discloses truths which the human mind could not of itself have originated, is a good reason for studying it with diligence and with prayer - not for supposing that it is unlawful for us to attempt to understand it; a good reason for reverence and veneration for it - not for sanctified neglect. From: Bible Hub: II Peter 1:20 commentaries End of excerpts ~ ~ ~ ~ *footnotes on “of”: The Free Dictionary: “of” The Free Dictionary: list of prepositions Wikipedia: genitive case ~ ~ ~ ~ PS: In case you’re wondering about the numbering and subset lettering on this thread – it was just a gimmick that made me be more concise, to the point and to show any correlation. It’s no big deal – readers and posters should feel free to interpret this thread any way they want to. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PPS: can you believe it ? look how long this post is! And it’s just on wierwille’s screwy misinterpretation of the phrase “of any private interpretation” – but wait there’s more! Think of how many other posts…threads have handled this same point. The moral of the story – it often takes a lot of work to unravel the gnarly knots of a cult-leader’s whatnots.

Yeah – I can see that – maybe similar to a learned helplessness thing - in that when students are stuck in the false dilemma WordWolf talked about ( either there is no interpretation possible or it must interpret itself ) if one is not aware of the false dichotomy and that other interpretations are possible they will be “forced” to go with it interprets itself…I don’t know if that’s what you had in mind – but that’s the reason I bought into it back then.