Mark Clarke

This was the first mistake. The errors in KJV were mistranslations which, for the most part, could be corrected by looking at the context, or other passages where similar words were used. Relatively few apparent contradictions required looking at the critical Greek texts, even in Wierwilles's theology. His "OTHER RULE or RULER that he went by to judge the KJV in error" was not the Greek, first and foremost. It was reading the Word and letting it interpret itself. Remember these? - The Word interprets ITSELF: 1. In the Verse - 85-90% of the Word! __a. Right where it's written __b. Words understood in light of their Biblical usage __c. Words must be in harmony with other words/verses on the same subject. __d. Narrative development, or Scripture build-up 2. In the context 3. Where it's been used before In addition, one of the biggest principles of interpretation he taught was that apparent contradictions were the result of either a mistake in our understanding OR a mistake in translation. Only when these principles were used and we determined that the mistake was not in our understanding, do we then consider a mistake in translation. The problem with most of his wrong doctrines did not even deal with Greek. Many of the wrong doctrines he taught missed it in the context, and can be refuted from the English without even getting into the Greek. He advocated some sound Biblical research principles, but unfortunately he didn't always use them well himself. When you said in the first paragraph, "It sounded to us like 'critical' meant 'most crucially important'" I assumed you were referring to an error in our/your understanding. When you repeat here that "the critical Greek texts were NOT ancient nor critically important," I'm starting to wonder whether you're making a pun or if you really think that's what it means. Just in case, let me point our that "critical" in this case does not mean "critically important" but has to do with the fact that the various manuscripts were critiqued by comparing one with another and determining (by several methods) which was the closest reading to the original, and putting them together in a Critical Greek Text. Furthermore, whoever taught you about the disagreements in the texts didn't do a very good job. Of all the Greek texts, a very small percentage of passages are so affected by the variant readings as to make a change in doctrine. They are mostly differences in spelling, parts of speech, place names and so forth. Secondly, the field of textual criticism has grown enormously in more recent years, since the discovery of many more manuscripts that are actually older than those which were used for the Stephens text. Every step back you take seems to gender more errors. To begin with, even VPW claimed his "only rule for faith and practice" was the Word of God, a phrase which he interpreted as the overall message as arrived at by studying the Scriptures. He never implied that his "only rule for faith and practice" was the ancient texts or anything like it. In addition, the critical Greek texts since the Stephens greatly eliminated most of the so-called "glaring" errors. Plus, between the manuscripts we have and the quotes from the writings of the early church fathers, virtually all of the NT documents can be reproduced with startling accuracy. This was known to Wierwille as well. That's why he used the Greek texts, rather than claiming they were "hopelessly corrupted" and we must rely on his "unique revelation." Why would you assume anyone else didn't care enough or was too busy to look into these questions? There is no "leap of faith" necessary to understand how VPW came to his "only rule of faith and practice." He taught HOW he accessed that in PFAL - the keys to how the Word interprets iteslf. And using THOSE VERY SAME KEYS many people have shown that many of VPW's doctrines were not based on an accurate interpretation of Scripture. Hello?! How about THE BIBLE!!! The Bible interprets itself and is relatively easy to understand when you read it without preconceived ideas and preformulated doctrines. But the failure to read it that way has resulted in many, many differences of opinion on various doctrinal issues. Yet the Bible has remained available for anyone who wants to read and understand it, and ask God for guidance. And many people over the years have seen the same truths independently from the Bible. Even those few things VPW had right are not unique to him but have been seen by many others throughout history. Exactly, and that's what you are doing by claiming PFAL and VPW's books as your rule of faith and practice. We don't appeal to a higher authority, we appeal to the keys in the Bible itself, and let it interpret itself, which is what VPW himself claimed to do (although he executed it poorly). You're contradicting yourself. You are absolutely right that "A rule for faith and practice can't be abstract." But that's as true for VP's as it is for anybody else's. You're also right that "It must be readable by other people where they read the same thing you read." That's why many other people seeing the same things is one indication that you are seeing the truth in the Scriptures. For example, many theologians from different walks of life have all seen that the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is the heart of what Jesus preached, as I have shown on my website. That's also why it's good that there are many scholars who have critically examined the manuscripts and texts, rather than relying on one person to clear it all up for us. God knows the tendency of people to want to exercise or abuse power (as seen throughout church history). He knew better than to put it into the hands of one man. "In a multitude of counsellors there is safety" (Prov. 11:14). VPW had a number of interpretations and theories from the Bible that few if any other people agreed with. (Although he did come up with a few things that were right - even a broken clock is right twice a day!) How to tell which of VP's doctrines were right and which were wrong? Let the Bible be the judge of VP, not VP the judge of the Bible. MY only rule of faith and practice is the Bible. I don't have to "wing it as I go." The Bible does indeed interpret itself, if we are honest enough and humble enough to approach it without preconceived ideas and let it speak for itself. You have made yours the writings of a man who not only failed to keep the Bible's faith and practice, but never claimed his writings could or should be anyone else's rule of faith and practice - in fact denied such a claim and told us to read the Word. To assign such a status to a man who never did so himself reminds me of the followers of Brian of Nazareth who insisted he was the Messiah, even though he flat out denied that he was. What, do you believe "only the True Teacher denies the God-breathed status of his teachings?" (Reference to Monty Python's Life of Brian, for those who don't know.) If you haven't pondered this, you're still (at best) trapped by PFAL. (BTW, I don't expect you to accept what I'm saying - though it would be nice! - but hopefully some people reading this will benefit from it.)

I read what you wrote. You said, "The Dead Sea Scrolls contain NOTHING on the NT and NOTHING on Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Unless you're into ancient languages they can be a huge distraction."In response, I pointed out that the Dead Sea Scrolls have established the accurate preservation of the OT texts. It was in response to what seemed like an implication that the scrolls are a distraction because they contain nothing about the NT that I said, "Do you consider the OT a distraction?" Since none of us actually saw the scrolls (at least not in the '70s) what we are talking about is not reading them ourselves but finding out what they say. A non-language scholar can read what language scholars say about them, and thereby learn what their significance is and what it means to textual research, and therefore whether or not the news is simply sensationalism with no substance. I don't see how that could be considered a distraction, if you're into Biblical Research.

Don't Worry Be Happy, Thanks so much for your input! I have a couple of questions. First, you mentioned Lamsa's "so-called" peshi tta text. I don't know much about what went into that. Why do you call it "so-called"? And secondly, in your opinion, do you think VPW knew he was being dishonest if not fraudulent, or do you think he was so deluded that he actually believed his own BS?

PLEASE don't get off on that old argument about solid evidence for VPW's alleged misdeeds. It is beside the point and has derailed too many threads in the past. Let's drop it and keep the discussion on track. The question that kicked off the thread was what do we believe about VPW and the snowstorm. A secondary, but related topic has been the nature of VPW's writings. I concur with Don't Worry Be Happy's sentiment: "i'm hoping they will add their personal perspectives, experiences, and insights into the FACTS behind vic's writing prowess, and that a lively, objective discussion will ensue."

The Dead Sea Scrolls have fragments from every OT book except Esther, in addition to other non-Biblical writing. Many of them have established the accurate preservation of the OT texts. Do you consider the OT a distraction? The Essenes' expectations of the coming Messiah, if they were comparable to what we read in the Gospels, may have been misunderstood but that doesn't make them a "devilish counterfeit." The Jews' expectation of the Messiah was based on OT prophecies, not lies made up by false teachers. What they didn't understand was that some things had to happen first, before he reigned as king and restored the kingdom to Israel. These things included the king dying for our sins, and then a period during which he would be seated at God's right hand while the Church proclaimed the Gospel. These were details added to the OT prophecies, and it was the failure to understand them when Jesus preached them that was the main reason the Jews rejected him. But the expectation of a king reigning in Israel again is based on Biblical prophecy, not counterfeit teaching.

You're right about whether or not the material was known before. His claim, and the official claim of TWI as an organization was not that NOBODY else taught anything VPW taught. It was how he put it together. But based on that, he still was dishonest. He didn't demonstrate which of the doctrines or teachings were his own and which were lifted from someone else. So anyone seeking answers would not be able to judge for himself whether the teachings were true. But more importantly, while he made statements like "I never claimed to be a Bible scholar" he still taught "principles" by which anyone could study the Bible. Remember the keys to "how the Word interprets itself"? That does not imply that the true meaning of the Scriptures has been so hopelessly lost that only the divine guidance VPW received would enable us to understand it, as you seem to think. He nearly always backed up his conclusions with Scripture, albeit misquoted, twisted, and out of context. He never claimed that he came by his understanding of the Bible by any means other than natural study methods and the keys which he taught, contrary to your claim that understanding from the manuscripts and texts was "irretrievably lost" before VPW. The admission that he learned things from other people who had studied the texts further establishes this. If God led him to select the writings of, say, E. W. Bullinger, then Bullinger's understanding of the Bible and its languages must have been valid (at least in VP's view); therefore the knowledge was not "irretrievably lost." VPW taught keys to studying and learning from the Bible. The only reason many of us didn't see the error of his doctrines is because we were studying the Bible to "work" VP's ideas, and not letting the Bible speak for itself. And we did that because of ideas like what he said in that Our Times article, "When I speak of research...I mean establishing in your heart the wonderful truths of God’s Word--to the end that these truths are your own." That's another way of saying, just master the "truths" I teach you and don't question the truthfulness of it. Those of us who have gone beyond that and really applied established principles of Biblical interpretation have seen the many doctrinal errors in PFAL and VP's books. You say you want to get back to "the source." Well, if the source of something VP taught was from someone else, wouldn't getting back to the source that he took it from be more desirable? And since he didn't document his sources in many, if not most, cases, there is no way someone picking up the sacred Studies in Abundant Living books could know the source of much of the material. VP himself said on more than one occasion, words to the effect of "don't take my word for it, read the Bible for yourself." Your statement above about seeking better knowledge, so we don't get "stuck with partial understanding and many misunderstandings" is as true, or even more true, with regard to the writings of VPW. If you really want to avoid misunderstanding, you should go back to the source, which is not VP's writings but The Bible. When you make statements like, "I'm so glad the Blue Book and others are not cluttered with distracting pointy headed footnotes and such. I simply enjoy it," it sounds disturbingly like people who say, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me witht he truth." That is exactly how wrong doctrines have taken hold throughout history. We are told to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (I Thes. 5:21) and to "...believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (I John 4:1). By studying only VP's writings you are actually disobeying these commands of the Lord. But hey, it's a free country!

Interesting parallel. He actually didn't say he saw "snow on the gas pumps." He said, "The sky was so white and thick with snow, I couldn't see the tanks at the filling station on the corner not 75 feet away." Continuing the parallel with the above stone tablets, we might say his theology was so thick with snow he couldn't see the commandments of the Lord.

Sure, he said, "Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work." But how many people knew what parts of his teachings were from which other sources? Since he rarely if ever gave credit or included sources or references, even in his writings which lifted whole paragraphs almost word for word, and knew that most of his followers wouldn't know what was whose, I would still call it "passing it off as his own." Just in such a slick way that you couldn't pin it down. Maybe he didn't say "this piece is mine" but if he didn't say whose it is, then it's a sin by omission. Again, most of us didn't know what "real" research looked like so we didn't know better. But I have since read a number of theological writings, in which the author says, "Such and such a theologian has this opinion about the subject, and such and such has an opposing opinion. I am inclined to agree with the first one, and here's why." Something like this (including footnotes and references) would be honest research.

Like what part of speech, voice, mood, tense, etc. jsut for starters. Not only that, but things like context and comparing similar passages, which were referred to in teachings on keys to research, but which comparatively few in TWI really knew how to do. Most "study" fellowships I was involved with zeroed in on the minutiae of the Greek words, and rarely dealt with the meaning of whole passages, let alone with related passages that had the same meaning but used different words.

Yet in all those years I never noticed that the difference in definitions that VP gave them was not even in Bullinger's Lexicon. Not to mention the many cases in which the understanding of a passage depended on more than looking up a word in the concordance. It wasn't until I started reading works of "real" Biblical scholars that I realized how little we knew.

Over in the Snowstorm thread. The specific post where I mentioned it was here.

Kimberly, I agree with almost everything you said (and I like your style! - "dangling genitalia" - LOL! ) The only thing I might reword if it were me, is when you said, "A loving Father makes, brings on or even allows sickness, disease or tragedy for His children. No way!! Absolutely, not in Him." See, the fact is that there is sickness, disease, and tragedy in this world, and if it's not allowed by God, then how does it get in? Is the devil more powerful than God? That's where TWI's logic went - if it's not of God it must be YOUR fault for not believing! Even when they blamed things on the devil, it was still our fault for not believing to keep him out. (This ties back in with the subject of feeling guilty 'cause we weren't good enough.) But the Bible gives us numerous examples where God allows something bad to happen because we are in this world, and not only delivers us but turns it around so that we learn something from it, or some other good comes of it. Like when Joseph was sold into Egypt. He told his brothers, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." Some of life's greatest lessons come in times of adversity. This world is full of terrible things, because of man's sin and the devil's rule. But a better day is coming, when there will be no more sickness, death, or tragedy. Until then, though, God wants us to learn to look to Him even when things suck. And sometimes our stand in the face of adversity can be an inspiration to others. Most likely all but one of the twelve apostles were killed for their faith. Was it because they couldn't believe to get delivered, as TWI taught? Or was it that their refusal to back down even in the face of death gave greater credibility to their testimony of Jesus and his resurrection? And they didn't "lose" because they'll be resurrected when the Lord returns, and then we'll all see how the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us (Rom. 8:18).

And what's funny is that he didn't even originate that! The theory that the words, "...in the name of the father..." etc., must have been added because Eusebius didn't quote them was first put forth by the nineteenth century Biblical scholar, F. C. Conybeare (1856-1924). To be fair, other people have quoted Conybeare's theory besides Wierwille, even though there is no foundation for it. But it doesn't even matter because Matt. 28:19 doesn't prove or disprove the Trinity, and even Trinitarians have pointed out that the verse only mentions the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and says nothing about them being three coequal persons in one God or anything else like it.

That's the worst spell of whether we've had in some time. (And in the context of discussing the snow storms! Tell me God doesn't have a sense of humor!)

You're right about "performance-based Christianity." Too much emphasis is placed on what we do and think. Yeah, we do have to try to do and think the right things, but God helps us with that through His Spirit and His Word - much more than we were taught in TWI. And what "the right things" are is to be gotten from God's Word, not from what people say. That's why it's important to read the Bible for ourselves and not be deceived by any group's opinions. That brings me to your comment that you don't like to read the Bible. I completely understand. I went through that myself. Have you tried reading a different version? I found that reading the old KJV reminded me a lot of The Way, plus because it was the same old words I'd heard over and over again, it tended to be like recitation in my mind. But when I read it in other versions, with slightly different wording, it seems fresher and also less like TWI. I like the NASV (New American Standard Version) these days, and sometimes NIV (New International Version) or The Message. In any version, though, there is the question you mention of whether that version or translation is right. That's where comparison comes in. But I think you'll find that the more you read, the more you see the "Big Picture" and the more you see how things fit into that picture. We missed that a lot in TWI because we were reading VPW's doctrines into it, instead of letting the Bible speak for itself. Okay, I'll say it. "Hey, God knows you aren't perfect and He loves you anyway." I have had a hard time accepting that at times too. But He's still there for me. His patience is supernatural! In addition to "working toward changes" God also works in us to change us from within. His Word and His Spirit can have that function. In fact I'm convinced that's the primary function of the Holy Spirit, more than "operating all nine all the time" as we used to say. So often we spin our wheels trying to change ourselves instead of relying on God's power. That doesn't mean we do nothing, but it does mean we have to rely on His ability and not ours. And by the way, we'll never "get it right" completely in this life. And God knows that but called us to eternal life in His Kingdom anyway. As we do our best God recognizes our heart. Ironically, even VPW used to say that looking at the world or ourselves causes us to fail, but turning your eyes on Jesus is the secret to a holy life. Sadly, too many people in TWI used to focus on everything but Jesus even though they quoted that. As for things you have no control over, of course God doesn't blame you, He's a righteous judge. I'm sure you know that, even though you still have guilt feelings. It was just pounded into our heads. I think we need to pour our hearts out to God and let Him fix them. I'm still working on that, but I'm getting better.

Wow! I didn't remember him saying that. Was that in the video from AC '79?

Yes, the bulk of the Aramaic work that was done was much later than VP's Studies in Abundant Living books. Still, there wasn't even a lot of detail about the Greek or Hebrew texts, which have been known for hundreds of years. And the detail that was mentioned, in his other books, was often faulty. I mentioned the case of dechomai / lambano in the other thread and there were others as well. He tried to pass himself off as a Greek scholar, but his knowledge of the language was minimal at best. Also, very little, if anything, was ever taught in TWI about textual criticism, which is how we can know more of what the "original" message was when their are textual variations. It's obvious Mike knows little about how that works if he is convinced that the original message is "irretrievably lost" - something that not even Wierwille claimed.

"It's what you learn after you think you know it all that really counts." -- V. P. Wierwille

I wouldn't have a problem with either snowstorm being a vision or something else that wouldn't have been recorded by the weather service, if it were genuinely of God. He can work things in miraculous ways that might defy explanation, as long as they accomplished what He wanted them to. But Jesus warned us of false prophets with false signs and wonders. The key to recognizing and avoiding them, according to the Lord - "You shall know them by their fruits." Yes, nobody's perfect and the men who wrote parts of the Bible sinned. The difference is that when they were confronted with their sins they repented, unlike VPW. Plus we know that what they wrote as Scripture fits together and presents the message as a unified whole. I Tim. 6: 3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. In contrast to consenting to the wholesome words of Jesus and his doctrine, VPW said that most of the words of the Lord were addressed to Israel, and not us. Verses 4 and 5 describe VP perfectly. By his fruit we know him.

II Cor. 7:10 For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. There is a difference between Godly sorrow which leads to repentance, and worldly sorrow which is guilt that doesn't do anything for you. If God works something in your heart it's for the purpose of helping you grow. Most of those guilt trips you describe are not based on Scripture, as far as I can see. Ask God to show you from His Word whether any of those accusations are genuine. If they aren't, ask Him to help you overcome the guilt feelings. If they are, He will also help you to change whatever needs to change. There is no profit in staying in a guilty state your whole life. BTW, if Eve is stupid for being deceived, what does that make Adam? He wasn't deceived, he walked in with his eyes wide open (I Tim. 2:14). And contrary to what TWI taught, sometimes sickness can be a way for God to get your attention when something is wrong in your life. But the Bible does not say that all sickness is for that purpose. We live in a fallen world and sickness is a part of life until the new world comes. (You may be interested in an article, The More Abundant Life?, on my website.)

Nor is anyone claiming that God spoke to John Entwhistle and told him, "I will teach you to play bass like it has not been played since the first century if you will in turn teach others." If Mike wants to hold to his faith in VPW's writings more than the Bible, that's his choice. I'm glad he's not running a ministry.

Mike, you quoted VP out of context! You referred to where he said "there are no original texts in existence today," but glossed over where he said, "At best, we have copies of the originals" (note - "copies of the originals" not "mis-copies of WHATEVER.") If we have copies of copies of the originals, then the Word communicated by the originals is only slightly changed, not lost, even though the original physical documents may be gone. Furthermore, he never said that the Scriptures were so corrupted that the only way we can know the Word was by the specially anointed insight God gave him. Had he ever said such a thing, I am confident that far fewer people would have followed him. WordWolf's quotation from the orange book shows that VP claimed we could study the Bible and use the same principles he did to arrive at the truth as it was originally God-breathed. We trusted him because we thought he was teaching us what the Greek and Hebrew said. Few of us knew enough Greek and Hebrew to realize his errors. As for your claim that the manuscripts are at "extreme variance with each other" I would refer you to any number of apologetics sources (which, by the way does NOT mean "apologizing for being a Christian" - he couldn't even get his English definitions straight!). Just for starters, in his book Misquoting Truth, Timothy Paul Jones responds to the claim that there are as many as 400,000 differences between manuscripts, stating that those differences have very little significance for three reasons: There is actually amazing agreement among the many manuscripts, considering their age and the number of them in extant. Craig L. Blomberg, in Jesus of Nazareth: How Historians Can Know Him and Why it Matters, states the following: This is why Jason David BeDuhn, in Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament can say with confidence: Far from being "catastrophically lost," the New Testament has been amazingly preserved down through the years. And besides, if the Scriptures were that corrupted, why would VP keep telling us to read the Word for ourselves and check out what he was saying? I honestly don't know where you got the idea that God's solution to the hopelessly lost Scriptures was to give VPW special revelation. VP himself never claimed such a thing. He always said not to take his word for it - "Just read it for yourself, keeds!" (The problem was that we read the Bible to try to corroborate what he said instead of reading it to see what it said for itself.) As for the disagreement with Paul, it is not just MY stance to disregard Dispensationalism. It cannot be demonstrated from the Scriptures. Believe me, I've tried. It's not even a matter of selecting different manuscripts, translations, or interpreters. The plain English verses that were used to prove Dispensationalism were taken out of context and in some cases completely misquoted, all the while contradicting many clear verses that show that Paul preached the same Gospel as Jesus. Again, since this isn't the Doctrinal forum, I'll just point out that I have dealt with this in detail on my web site, if you are interested: Dispensationalism One Gospel But as I said, the Dispensationalism issue is only one of many issues. There are others which even moderately competent Biblical scholars can see right through, but we were always warned not to listen to scholars because they were all full of head knowledge and didn't really believe God and His Word. We were told not to consider outside sources, lest we get tricked by the adversary. Most of us never even knew what the opposing viewpoints were on all the major doctrines, so we had nothing to compare VP's doctrine to, except for his filtered version of what they said. One last thought. Why would God, after miraculously inspiring many different men to write the Scriptures, put our only means of understanding them in the hands of one man? Let alone a man whose lifestyle went completely against the things that he preached? Fortunately God had better sense than that.

But have you considered the works of other theologians who are 1) Non Trinitarian, and 2) Not of the "God is dead" persuasion? There are many (though obviously not in the majority, esp. concerning the Trinity) who have done much better jobs at teaching the Bible than VPW. Catastrophic loss of the Scriptures? Wierwille never even claimed that! He never said the Scriptures were lost, and in fact encouraged us to read the Bible for ourselves to check him out. The textual evidence shows overwhelmingly that the Bible has been preserved better and more accurately than any comparable ancient writing. Since none of us was there, then we can't prove VP's credentials by the snow story. We must prove the snow story by the veracity of the teachings. If God appointed Paul the Apostle in the first century, and VP Wierwille in the twentieth, shouldn't they agree, doctrinally? But they don't! VP interpreted the NT in light of his Dispensationalist model, but Paul did no such thing. He taught the same Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus did, all the way through Acts, and never implied that that Gospel was "held in abeyance" or "only for Israel." And that's only one (major) point on which they disagree. There are others. If VP's theology contradicts the Apostle Paul's, my money is on Paul being right and VP being wrong. And that would prove that he was not specially appointed by God to teach The Truth.

Good point. I've often wondered the same thing myself. Where are the accusations against Bullinger/ Leonard/ Stiles/ etc.? Not condoning docvic's actions by any means. He surely *wasn't the man he knew to be*. I've yet to hear (read) any condemnations of Bullinger/ Stiles/ Welch/ Leonard/ etc. If docvic was a smardastic plagiarist, that's one thing. Critics seem to be citing his sources. I suppose it'll take a different thread to debunk them, eh? Or will that happen?? I'm not familiar with Stiles or Welch, but Bullinger took Ultra-Dispensationalism to ridiculous extremes, and Leonard missed the boat on a lot of the Holy Spirit stuff, which Wierwille then stole/adapted. I personally get tired of hearing everybody complain about Wierwille stealing material, with comparatively little critique of the material he stole. I consider VP's writings sophomoric because he stole much of it uncritically, and then filled in with his own farm-boy logic to make it seem like his own.

Sorry, man! Better late than never.