roberterasmus

My God, you two, stop speaking Greek here will ya? I’d like to comment on one item that Steve wrote: This may or may not involve the exegesis/ eisegesis topic in specifics, but hopefully it’ll help in the overall understanding of where VP turned things “inside out” for some of you. Depending on whence someone came in their theological upbringing he or she may have found the ideas espoused in PFAL good or bad. Most people who signed the green card ususally didn’t have a background from whence to come. That wasn’t the case with me, but that’s another story. What is important is the “understanding”. If, like me, you were a Roman Catholic who had just been given initial Bible teaching a couple of years before PFAL (basically through Pentecostalism), then the stuff in PFAL was not hard at all to fathom. If you were, however, from a Protestant background in the Reformed tradition (whether or not you listened at your church when you were younger) then some of the ideas were possibly earth shattering. Speaking in tongues was available. The dead were dead until the resurrections. There were dispensations in God’s purposes. There was a future for Israel. Jesus was not God. Many more...of course. But every issue that you might bring up in the PFAL class has/had theological history to it. It was not done in a vacuum historically. When Steve uses the term “right side out again”, I feel that some, if not all, here at GS agree that what they were taught had no basis in classic Christian theology and that is just not the case. Please don’t get me wrong, VP plagiarized so much that it makes one sick, but still, it was not “new”. It was just put together in slick, palatable doses. Further, I'm tired of talking about his (im)practical application of it and it's smarmy results...please. BTW, Jerome and Augustine did, IMHO, turn the understanding of what Paul wrote on it’s proverbial ear. Allegorizing and “spiritualizing” what is plain and logical in Scripture will do that. Now, some of you Catholics out there can start with the Bob-bashing. RE

Gen-2, I'll agree to a point. There is language in the Scriptures that refer to the "mature" (as opposed to those needing milk), but I'll agree also that people can "overstudy" and become monkish to a fault (read: eggheads for Jesus). That balance between doctrine and practice is a place I want to live. RE

I'm sort of in agreement with JeffSjo on the defining of "heart" in this matter. That's something for another time (read: I don't have occasion or vigor to work that all up through every USAGE in the Hebrew Scriptures...there are 600 USES alone and another 156 in the Christian Scriptures). Remember the old "seat of the personal life". That's probably OK for a few places (USES), but certainly not the semantic range (USAGES) we'd need to explore. If it’s not critical for the explication of your thoughts in the matter, Steve, I’ll bow out on it. I’d like to have an idea where you are searching here though. Give us the big picture. We won’t hold it against you. re

Ah, yes, the topic of this thread. So, maybe a little banter about the topic instead of VP? Whadayathink? Of course I realize that things will be yanked in his direction eventually. Just can't get away from the dude. Maybe there are some eisegetic/exegetical mistakes we can fix? I like the fixes. Helps with the walk. Oh, Steve has started back in on one now! I’ll attempt to answer your question: “Why would Jeremiah write something like that?” Historically, the context of Jeremiah places this diatribe before the carrying away of Judah into Captivity. He writes this in the face of the obstinence of those Jews who did not trust in the Lord, but rather man (verses 5-7). The “heart” can be “crooked” (lit Heb.) and “incurable”, yet compensation from Yahweh is after He has searched that heart and tested the “kidney” (don’t ya just love FOS?). Look to your “conduct” and what your “deeds” actually do. A little exe and eise… What’s next in your brain Steve?

Pretty much sums it up for me. Nicely said. Been through other "cults" (I guess we have to say that to be legit around here) and took what good there was. Again and again it was those damn humans who messed it up. Just stopped into the office for a look see at the conflagration. I'll comment more later today. Steve, you're a good soul. Bob

OK Geisha, As you and others have ongoing problems with VP you will probably get to introduce him to your ideas of his judgement at some time in the not too distant future. Personally, I don’t like spending time trying to figure out his sins. I have enough of my own. If we want to discuss his ecclesiology that's another story entirely. Your anger at me, however, is a bit misplaced. Your notions of accountability to a structure and (if I read you correctly??) someone “standing without (outside?)” of said structure and not “sharing common faith” and “making pronouncements”…where is all this coming from? Are you directing such accusations at moi? Am I not approaching my dictated ecclesiatical responsibilities with enough devotion? What? Can we not just discuss things civily on a thread without impugning someone’s character (even if may not be mine…)? Why are you trying to legitimize the Pharisees’ “role and duty” as if it represents some kind of model under which the Christian church should act? In the main they were "blind leaders (of the blind)". I'm trying to stay out of the ditches. I’d much rather hear you talk about how we today might fulfill our individual ministries in the body of Christ than that. Inspecting (so intently) one’s liberty (“in Christ”) is hardly what I’d expect from someone who seems, quite obviously, to have been delivered from the wrath to come. What’s all this about Jesus being the “express image of God”, as if I’m not aware of his pedigree? Maybe you were trying to introduce me to him? I can’t claim a perfect understanding of him (yet), but pretty soon (I am seeing through that darkened glass ya know…). This is how I figure it: you know I don’t hold your notion of Jesus being part of some triune Godhead. I don’t hold your high opinion of the denominationally structured “church”. I don’t like the western structure of the large congregation with the focus at the front, but that doesn’t mean I’ll demean those who choose to attend and subserve themselves to said ecclesiatisical structures. Hell, I bought the t-shirt some time ago; I've just sold it to others. I wouldn’t intend to compel someone else to live before God as I live. Isn’t that how people got in trouble; playing “follow the leader”? Who’s our leader? That was rhetorical… RE

Geisha, The denominational church to which I refered is certainly an earthly creation. I'm sorry if I was not clear, but I thought I was. So, were you referring to VP's denomination when you said he "left" in "disgrace and defiance"? It was the only question I asked... As for the Pharisee's legitimacy, let me say that I'll stand by what I wrote. Not that they were not part of social fabric of the religious Palestinian Jew (hey I even think Jesus was one (by training)...but that's another story). Pharisees were as legitimate as their own tracking to the Hebrew Scriptures. Why are you getting hostile? I'm not starting a fight here. I'm just discussing a very important issue. Have I offended you in some way? In what way did I say Paul's prescription for an "overseer" or a "deacon" was somehow wrong? Wow! RE RE

Interesting take on VP, ya’ll I’m sure that he (as well as every other evangelical preacher at some time or other…maybe as much (or more in some cases) as VP…) has practiced eisegesis. Hey, the Jews accuse Christians of practicing eisegesis in the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures (thinking, as we do, that it has information about Jesus, OMG)! But the example of the Romans record is not really eisegesis on VP’s part; it’s bad reading and bad hermeneutics and then bad preaching. Its not even how dispensationalists (Bullinger included) read the passages. Confusion, whether it be TWI or any other group, ensues when we don’t read what’s written, as you so deftly point out, Steve. “Authorial intent” is really what we are dealing with in the eisegesis area and interestingly enough, the research fellowship at TWI (and Walter Cummins), DID get it as regards “what it meant to them” and “what it means to us”. We did, however, have to bash our heads against the icon of PFAL to no avail in many cases. The whole of it is really just hermeneutics (even though the word means “interpretation” it is in the main: exegesis) and homeletics (even though this is technically “preaching” it is in the main: eisgesis). They try to teach this in Seminaries, but it often gets lost in the sauce of “how to run a church” or “how to fund a church activity”. They are sisters in the most important one-two combo for the Church’s continued success. If we miss these we will LIVE wrongly. As to VP having “left his ministry” (I assume you mean his pastorate in the Dutch Reformed church) “in disgrace and definance”, I’d like to know what is meant. That “church”, an earthly creation as any other denomination or parachurch group, could not give VP any more (or less) legitimacy or authority outside it’s own purview. If someone was led to follow VP to TWI, that was their perogative (or their being deceived, if you feel so strongly). But this happens everywhere, all the time. Similarly, the Pharisees were only legitimate within the purview of the Jewish system at the time. They and the Sadducean party were essentially political opponents within the Sanhedrin (which itself was an invention of that same Jewish system) and within society in general. You won’t read about them in the Hebrew Scriptures, but their roots were in the Pre-Herodian civil war and the social debate out of which the factions arose to prominence. Josephus mentions the Pharisees, Sadducees and the Essenes already in existence during the reign of Jonathan (160-143 BC), but the meteoric rise of the first two (2) parties really came to the fore in the period between 76-40 BC. After that, of course, we find them clashing with Jesus (and themselves) in the Gospel period and with the Church in Acts. Thought it might be of interest to know some of this. Didn’t cost any extra… But this history (hopefully) speaks to the “legitimacy” issue and how VP “drew people away” from something (whatever one might perceive as an “official” or praiseworthy endeavor such as a “church” or “denomination”); they are all fabricated things within society. I agree, Geisha, that there is a true Church, but no one can point to it and says there it is (though of course TWI tried that and failed, eh?). Rather, I’d say that (with James), “Everyone is put to the test by being attracted and seduced by that person's own lusts (over-desires). Then the desire conceives and gives birth to sin, and when sin reaches full growth, it gives birth to death.” Love that “gives birth to death”! None of us were/are immune from deception (even today, BTW); and other men (and women!) than VP will arise and distort the truth to find more disciples, get more money, become the “mighty one in the earth”. Started with Nimrod and won’t stop until the lake of fire. These “men of the name” will be amongst us and we need to have the tools to find them out. Correct exegesis and accurate eisegesis are a couple of good ones, IMHO. RE

Steve, Any “argument” in the classical sense (posting an idea, having dialogue, and a possible concensus) is good stuff! I’m all for it. So, don’t apologize for kicking up ideas and information. I’m also of the opinion that Moses probably wrote in hieroglyphics (brought up in the house of a Pharoah’s daughter will do that for you…) and may have had a hand in the alphabet. I wrote a piece for publication while in seminary on the language of the Jews from the Biblical evidence (how it developed, morphed and grew firm with the publication of the MT). I’ll try to find it and update it for today’s audience. I’m interested in the evidence you might provide for books being “composed” in “Solomon’s scriptorum”. Also, I’m interested in the verb you used for Moses’ writings (“upgraded”); script and material only? There are some who feel that they were edited. I don’t; there’s no evidence for this, IMHO. Now, on the heels of that article that I attached I’ll attach another for discussion (rather than just shock and awe). It was written by someone whom I respect and opens a lot of areas of inquiry and answers a lot of questions. FF Bruce wrote this article back in 1946 for the Victoria Institute, an organization of evangelicals who actually wanted to discuss inspiration and inerrancy. The other article was attached to give people the sense of what one has to do in Biblical research. The notion that Paul was a non-scientific prophet must sit in the consciencousness while reading (not, say, as an angel on the shoulder kind of thing, but in the awareness). These difficult Scriptures to understand in the Western mind can be ferreted out. There are other contexts, many that relate to women in the Bible, that cannot be understood without the historico/cultural aspect being brought in. Anyway, here’s the next article. Hopefully this helps jump start the discussion. Well, tried five times to attach the next PDF without success. I'll try doing it in paragraphs. RE

Steve, You haven’t derailed it, but given it some “heart”. It can be a subject that is fraught with intellectualism and yet really needs perspective. Thank you for the articles in BAR. I haven’t read that journal in some years, but was able to access it on line and read the two (2) articles. Your statement highlighted above is interesting to me in two ways: 1. There was a scribal community in Jerusalem at the time (David and Solomon’s…circa 1050-935 BC). Just look at the Biblical texts that ascribe (no pun intended) their existence. 2. The “early books” were probably put “into written form for the first time” a bit before this time period since Moses lived circa 1530 BC and put together the “early books”. I’ll point out Jesus’ ascription as to the author of them. I will say that I think that the alphabet was available before David’s time (there are other theories than the author’s of the BAR pieces), but even if the “early books” were written in something other than an alphabetic script (say cuneiform) the authors before the “kingdom” period were not fictitious. The question that I’ve been having fun with lately is how to understand “inspiration” in a time previous to ours where, as someone earlier said, there were “cultural divides”. I don’t discount the “human error” possiblity or the problems of copying and perserving the sacred texts so much (as there are multiple copies and very few problems with the texts themselves). But the near eastern, non-scientific mind set is something that the good researcher must wrestle with and should. I’d like to attach here an article that was given to me some weeks ago that has me so excited that I cannot express it. It’s not an easy article to read (some Greek knowledge would help), but it is one enlightening piece and helped explain a section of Scripture that was almost unintelligible before. I'd like comments if you would. It is an example, IMHO, of great research. RE 1%20Cor11%20head%20covering%20testicle.pdf

Steve, Some GREAT things in this post. Made me jump from Moses to the prophets to TWI and all places in between. I also saw quite vividly the Gospel and the book of Acts (in one particular vein) almost jump off the page. The pharisees had this same “particular verbal line of attack” and boy did they push it for all it was worth. It had developed out of laziness, pride and greed over some years during the intertestamental period. Things started out with good intentions with the “scribe” (see Ezra and others) and morphed into a closed corporation that had all the ANSWERS (and by God if you didn’t kowtow you were on the outs…much more here, BTW). There are further examples in the earlier Hebrew Scriptures, but certainly in the Gospels and Acts we see how Jesus dealt with it by getting out and about with the truth and delivering people (“who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil”). In the book of Acts, the early church did fabulous things for about 15 years and then the “law” boys took over (again), led by(OMG), James (Jesus’ brother)…go figure. This is not to say that we toss the inconceivable intricacies of the Book and it’s “jots and tittles” on the ash heap of forlorn religion; Jesus didn’t, but we have to keep that balance whereby practice follows doctrine; it’s fundamental. RE

Very interesting approach on Biblical research showing up here. I suppose that if Luther stayed with the “tried and true” I might still be serving Mass (did I mention I was an altar boy?) and having the heirarchy tell me what is the correct way to understand what is written and what interpretation I might be allowed to consider. One case in point in my life came up pretty quickly after I learned a smidgon of the Scriptures. My professor, who, BTW now is head of the Biblical Studies department of my alma mater (one of the engineers on the “train” mentioned above), insisted on their being multiple authors of the book of Isaiah (I’m sure some of you here have been down that long (insane) road (or have at least heard of that long road) of Biblical criticism in the Hebrew Scriptures). Being naïve in the ways of discourse (I was (and am, BTW) an engineer at heart and pretty much looked at things through a math and physics eye) and having no previous experience in theology (historical or otherwise) and of course being “young and restless” in my own intelligence (i.e. - I was a pompous a.s.s)…I asked him to prove it. Let’s just say he was none too pleased with that remark and later, because of my growing Unitarian stance at this prestigious school, tried to get me thrown out. Cooler minds prevailed (I had my own Gamailiel) and I was allowed to remain. Point is, I disagree with this paragon of wisdom even today (we’ve communicated recently). I guess we could go about with dueling theologians as some suggest, but I think a discussion on the items and issues right here is better. Some want to discuss Open Theism, then start a thread and discuss. Don’t mince with other expert’s words, but have at it yourself. I’ll not defend it here, but will (again) ask that any interested party read the primary sources and their authors first before taking a secondary’s opinion (Satan & the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy, Greg Boyd (2001). Then there’s The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, John Sanders, 1998. InterVarsity Press and The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, Clark Pinnock editor, et al., 1994, InterVarsity Press). OMG, I’ve recommended Trinitarians (all) and look, some were published by Intervarsity Press. Can’t get more non-heretically homgeneous than that. They must be on the right track…or not. Now, I’ve told my children since they were, well, kids, how NOT to act around the religious elite (I (literally) wore the t-shirt that said, “Jesus Christ is not God”…man was I a jerk; maybe that had something to do with almost being thrown out of school…hmmm), but also having been brought up with a theological daddy, they knew that any question was not a dumb question. They learned from whatever source my wife (who homeschooled them and is way smarter than me) and I thought was the best. They had Jehovah Witnesses biblical primers (OMG!), they went to numerous churches, read disparate documents that I and others had published and grew up pretty well (questioning and answering types). They continue to push Dad’s buttons (excuse me “push the envelope” is what I really meant) on all things theological and they don’t always track on my heading…outta’ tosh them out of the group, don’t ya think? Gotta go upstairs for supper. Maybe more later. Bob

Wondering which "doctrine" is bad that she might have been encouraged to abandon? Maybe that's another thread to start, eh? RE While Open Theism is not the subject in this thread, there may be areas that come up with the question of God’s soverienty in mind (and is "almighty" a good translation for shadai?). And please do go to those who have written first on the subject (Primary sources, not secondary) and make up your own minds. I suppose a thread on this subject would fill up the next few months in my schedule, so I’m not necessarily interested in formulating a Biblical theory here on GS, but I’ll comment as I can as it relates here. I remember when I first came to a beginning understanding of the Bible and I had everybody and his brother telling me what they thought (I was brought up Roman Catholic without a “lic” of sense about the book). It got so intense after I spoke in tongues (didn’t quite know what it was and the church I attended wasn’t…shall we say…informing me from the Bible) that I quit engineering school and went to a Bible college. My desire was to learn the primary sources of all this Bible stuff (Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic) and read the damn thing myself without the wool being pulled over my eyes…ever again. Please, when something comes up here that is foreign to you or is in some sense (seemingly) Biblical, read the primary sources on it. It’ll serve you well by reading the proponent’s arguments first and then bouncing other’s ideas off of them. Even when I say something excathedra as Chief Cook and Bottle Washer. RE

So, Geisha, I noticed you’ve lumped CES/ STFI into the TWI yeast filled dough. I’m not sure how this relates to TWI, but if you have specific questions I’d be glad to answer them. I consider John Schoenheit a friend (and old friend for that matter). When CES speaks it’s usually him, eh? Also, I’m not necessarily a fan of John P. Juedes and his analysis of disparate groups, inclusive of TWI and CES and whoever else. And I’m not sure who STTIL is (in Juedes’ report)? Can you help? Bob

Geisha, Thanks for the questions. I guess as we get to dialogue together we must put forth certain appearances so another understands from whence another comes (theologically). My use of “Evangelical” is merely to get me “in the door” so to speak, so others realize I’m a Bible-believing sort, an apologist for a fundamental Christian view (I’m probably going to have to explain “fundamental” too, eh?). I just did a quick google on Evangelicalism and the definition on Wikipedia will suffice for my basic views. And here the point below that counts is of course #3. I’d probably put it first, however. · A belief in the need for personal conversion (or being "born again") · Some expression of the gospel in "effort" · A high regard for biblical authority · An emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus.[2] David Bebbington has termed these four distinctive aspects conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism, noting, "Together they form a quadrilateral of priorities that is the basis of Evangelicalism." My protestation against the Trinitarian analysis of God is only one of the characteristics of my theology that might offend the majority of Evangelicals, as you have rightly noticed, but your idea that the denial of “soul sleep” being, in the main, an Evangelical trait is not necessarily so. I have acquaintances who are Trinitarian and realize that the “dead” are… well…dead…until the resurrections/rapture. Now, the idea that God changes is probably the newest “thing” in theological circles that the mainline Reformed theologians don’t like because it offends their Calvinistic sensibilities (predestination, etc.). But, similar to another historical theological movement, Arminianism (late 16th Century into the 17th), that also flew in the face of TULIP (the Calvinist credo), , the Open Theism movement (begun in the mid 1980’s, but with roots much earlier) is firmly Evangelical. There’s an interesting little insider’s battle back in 2003 (if you care to read) where certain members of the Evangelical Theological Society tried to have certain open theists removed from their ranks because of the “new” theology. Norm Geisler (maybe you’ve read his book Creating God in the Image of Man?) is one of the most outspoken opponents of the open theists, so I’m wondering if you might read some other Evangelical’s views on the subject before counting open theists out of the picture. Geisler actually quit the ETS after they did not vote Clark Pinnock out; a little theological petulance on his part, IMHO. As to annihilationism being beyond the pale of Evangelicalism, I’d refer you to a great book by Edward Fudge (you probaby know this, but for all our eager readers…) called The Fire That Consumes. You’ll read an impassioned and very Biblical case for annihilationism from a great Evangelical (he has been a member of the Evangelical Theology Society for many years…since 1972). So I’m glad you’re not “dissing my theology” and I’m sure you’ll get to know it better as we discuss various Biblical issues, but suffice to say (so you can better put me in the correct theological matrix) I’m: 1. Biblical (to the nth degree as you’ll see here on this thread) 2. Unitarian (as opposed to Trinitarian) 3. Dispensational 4. Charismatic (and make a distinction between the Giver and His gift) 5. A “dead are dead” kinda guy (call it “soul sleep”) 6. A “one baptism” kinda guy (and it isn’t water) 7. A believer in the devil/Satan/Lucifer/the dragon/the nachash, etc (in other words, I see the dichotomy in the heavens…and that you cannot proclaim a belief in the God of the Bible without acknowledging His alter ego) 8. An “old earth” creationist 9. An open theist 10. Hold that men and women were created equal (with both having dominion), then the Adversary stepped in and we went down that long, wrong patriarchal road (still on it in most churches), yet (thankfully) “in Christ” there is no longer distinction. Read Why Not Women? By Cunningham and Hamilton; it’ll change your life! 11. A “permanance of the new birth” kinda guy 12. An Hebraic (ANE) mentality kinda guy; as opposed to a Greek outlook on the Scriptures (inclusive of the Christian Scriptures, BTW…I think there was an Aramaic original…) That’s the short list. As for TWI not being “Christ centered”; that’s a matter of opinion. It is interesting to me, having come into TWI from the Jesus Freak faction of the Christian spectrum (late 60’s through early 70’s), that VP’s teachings ALWAYS used the word “Christ” or “Jesus Christ” (or for that matter “Christ Jesus”) and shyed away from just Jesus (I was a “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus” kinda guy for years before TWI). Certainly, from my perspective, this TWI methodology was a reaction against much of that emotional stuff that existed in Pentecostalism and the “Freak” movement (which isn’t Biblical in it’s expression either, BTW) and also an attempt to stay Biblical regarding the post resurrection Messiah (you know that dispensationalism is focused there). I’ve never done a search through the Pauline corpus for just the term “Jesus” (in exclusion from “Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus”), but I’ll bet you won’t find many uses. But TWI and VP were very “Christ centered”, just not in the way that Trinitarians are. Trinitarians use the three-in-one concept to extrapolate theologically (having also been one of their company for years and while in a conservative Bible college I have some knowledge…arguing with theologians can get you into hot water…). Seeing Jesus through those theologically rose-colored (or IMHO, opaque) glasses you’d expect the worship for the God rather than the more appropriate reverence for the man. But I see your point. I think TWI (corporately) went out of their way NOT to use the term “Jesus” alone and thereby skewed the view of his overall being. That was bad. So how was TWI “representative of the Evangelical branch” view of inerrancy/ inspiration? See the first list above from Wikipedia if you would and certainly we can discuss the elements of “interpretation” used by TWI if you want (I really don’t care that much, but I will engage where I think I can help understanding the past and where it hurt or helped), since much of it was good in approaching the texts and may come up here in discussion. So, my longwinded answer to your questions may not help in this thread, but you asked. As you may have noticed from my posts here (and on other threads), I moved on from TWI many years ago and don’t really want to go back (mentally or theologically). But if anything in my experiences there can clarify a text and thereby help it be applied in daily life, please ask away. It is often what I consider the measure of my worth. Bob PS - I just noticed that you revised your former thread so I'll try to get into it later. Hope this helps in the mean time.

Any serious discussion of how to word the terms “inspiration” or “inerrancy “ in a proposal that fits the Biblical evidence must first be set in the Ancient Near East (ANE). I have found that scholars of a former generation and who have written on the subject are often not comfortable with the data that has been unearthed since, let’s say, the finds at Ugarit (early 20th Century) or those even of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947). Often I find the wooden definition of “inerrancy” couched in terms of God pushing around the fingers of the prophets. I alluded to this above when I said that the Bilble itself does not ascribe to the dictation method (aka in theological circles as “God alone”), except, I must say, in a few instances such as with Baruch and Jeremiah and I’m sure a few others. I’m convinced this idea that God was the only one involved in the process is a product of the “God is in control” theology and doesn’t allow for the human element. I’m an open theism kinda guy (God changes). But folks this inspiration thing happened with humans (remember I’m Evangelical, conservative and Biblical) over a short period of time, with a pre-scientific world-view, in a localized culture, etc. It is a providential thing that occurred here. Below I’d like to list a couple of things that a man, with similar background and a bit more education than I, has said. Maybe there will be discussion. “God directed writers to build arguments or polemic material using pagan literature. This was deemed an effective mode of communication to accomplish the divine purpose”. “God directed the authors of Scripture to, at times, advance arguments or theological points using the pre-scientific (non-scientific) worldview of the authors. God did not choose to correct pre-scientific ideas to do this. At other times, this worldview comes through in material that doesn’t have any deliberate polemic purpose or theological point (it’s just there), but that is God’s choice”. “God directed the human authors to utilize literary conventions common to the rest of the literate world of antiquity – covenant / treaty formulas, genealogies, genres, apocalyptic, etc”. Now, I think I might change “directed” to “allowed” (however we might take that in the permissive mode) because God be a pretty powerful guy can do a lot of things. Of course there’s his justice in creating “free will” beings who also make choices and mistakes and have a language all their own, who don’t live in a western culture and have no clue about the Big Bang (or do they?). This allowance leaves the literary conventions purely in the hands of the authors (who, BTW, might have thought it weird to have a totally unfamiliar world view shoved down their proverbial throats). I have theories of why God chose a “people” (Israel) for Himself and protected their language the way he did (you won’t find much else in the ancient world written in Hebrew except for a few ostraca, the Gezer calendar (10th Century BC), the Shiloam inscription (8th Century BC) and the Shebna lintel (7th Century BC) for all you Wikipedia folks to check out); there are some good stories behind them. All of these are in the Hebrew of the dates above and represent the extent of really ancient Hebrew (they were written in stone) and they were not Biblical. There are two (2) reasons for this; the Hebrews copied their works from Moses on down and destroyed the original (not totally sure why, but I have some stories about Genizas (where they threw the old copies in the synagogues) that you might like to hear) and there was much memorization going on. Other cultures (the Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Ugarit, Babylonian and even Egyptian) recorded much of their history (and mythology) in stone (tablets written in cuneiform (little wedge shaped pictographs that represent, at least today, the oldest known “writing system” in the world) and we have those works today; the real ancient ones (1st to 3rd millennium BC). The Hebrews wrote with an alphabet (revolutionary at the time). I have theories of that as well, but it does have to do with the writings themselves. I’m rambling….off to bed.

Oak, I wasn't speaking to insult you or anyone else. I’m just expressing my opinion about the "many paths" thing. You may believe that. If you truly believed that the Bible was "happy horseapples" I'd think you'd have the honesty to say so. I wouldn't hold back an opinion like that. It appears to me, at least, that you have some interest in the "doctrine" of Bible inerrancy or inspiration and the fact that you’re interested in the "message" over the "details" is fascinating. I'm a bit more ambitious about the text and feel that the rudiments are just as important as the message, else the message is blurry and very touchy-feely. I realize there’s that “spirit” and “letter” thing happening (and that context in 2 Corinthians ought to come up here in the not too distant future) and I’ve got to think that there’s that tender balance the Jesus showed, that Paul and Peter showed. But on the other hand, when they dealt with the religious hierarchy and others who diverged from the truth there were words out of the mouth such as “you are like whited sepulchers” and “I have delivered (them) unto Satan”. They were opinionated men. Certainly the TWI view of inerrancy is not what all Christians believe, but it is quite representative of the Evangelical branch. I have this ongoing “conversation” with my father’s wife about all this. She goes to church much more than me and faithfully sings in the choir, gives to (insert country) refugees and the Sierra Club, engages in structured church activities (all of this is great stuff, BTW) and yet cannot understand my brand of devotion. She’s a good woman. I’m not her idea of a Christian. She holds a very low opinion of the Scriptures, but likes a certain representation of Jesus; the one who “who went about doing good”. She merely forgets the rest of that statement from Peter’s lips, “and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.” There is no devil in her world. All I can say is that she is missing a great deal because she cannot read the simplest of truths. Biblical interpretation and application (the reason anyone here might even be remotely interested in this stuff) are based on the text…all of the text. The message, IMHO, is not full and meaningful unless the entire scope is understood and applied. It takes some degree of work after one has believed. As I mentioned in another thread, I’m thinking there must be a better word than “perfect” for the Scriptures; that kinda goes without saying. Working out how they apply because of what they say, might be a better gauge of what they are. Is that a word? RE

Oak, I'm thinking I can find a better word for "perfect" for the text, but it'll have to do for now. I can't even begin to describe the fun it's been over the 40 years of study. The fact that my kids (brilliant as they both are...) will go further in all this is even more exciting. RE Steve, Please continue to sign your posts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Others here have said over and over again, "This is not what we got to do in TWI." I agree and whether someone thinks like I do is not at issue. My wife will tell you that no one does... 30 years of this is more than any woman should have to endure. But thank you for your kind words. If you have a hankering you can chime in on the doctrinal thread on the subject. RE

To all (sorry I was away...), I must admit before going too far into this subject that I’m a Biblical and evangelically minded individual that accepts the canon of my forbears (not without stipulation and corollary, mind you, but I’m not going to change my religion because someone else says “there are many paths to the same God” or some other happy horse-apples). This is not to say that other things are not great and that truth cannot be found elsewhere (other religions, other writings not religious in format and content or nature). But as my “rule (canon) for doctrine and practice” I have chosen the Bible. I am not oblivious to the non-scientific culture and backdrop in which we find every prophet’s writing. Northwest Semitic philology is critical when researching Biblical text and theology. Take for instance the use of literary conventions, imagery, parable and tale and the work of understanding the ancient Biblical physiography (What the “structure” of the Biblical raquia (firmament), heaven, hell and worlds and ages are). One really has to open up to the ancient men who wrote (or "gathered" in the case of Moses and the Chronicler and others) the materials that went into the texts. Somewhere above (I think it was Geisha) it was mentioned that the Biblical model of inspiration was not Koranic in nature (dictation) and further it was not automatic writing or any situation where God “took over” the fingers of the prophet and pushed it around the pages of papyri (like that alliteration?). Exploring the intricacies of the relationship between prophet (immediate or secondary author) and the Primary (or Ultimate) Author is something that engenders discussion. And in my humble opinion, any theory of “inspiration” that tries to write out the human side of the picture is hopelessly bankrupt. RE

Steve, You have said, “Holding to inerrancy is foolish on three counts. First, even if the original autographs were perfect, we don't have the orinal autographs, and there is no way to recover them. Two, even if the Bible were perfect, NO person's interpretation of it could be perfect, with the possible exception of Jesus Christ's. Third, if God committed His entire Self to a book, He would be putting Himself into an awfully small box.” The inerrancy issue is very important to some who do think the the originals were “perfect”. I’m not sure if that makes us fools or not. How does that word “perfect” actually flesh out in the handling of our present texts? This is why there are institutes of higher learning on the subject (Evangelical Bible colleges, seminaries even some divinity schools). Degrees in the field of textual criticism, hermeneutics and languages. Its not necessarily an easy task. Especially when the prophets are spread out over such a long period of time, etc., etc. Further, some think that the autographa is possible to recover. Does this remove the thorny issues of the pre-scientific prophets or the forms in which the texts come to us with their eastern cultural backwash, figures of speech, individual ways of expression, etc? No, but neither does that further daunting task frustrate the effort to recover (as best as possible) words that matter. Some pursue the holy grail of the “perfect” interpretation of the “perfect” text. That systematic theology, a demanding discipline and one fraught with dialogue. It was (and is) my favorite thing to do. It is actually getting out into the world practically what one has discovered is doctrinally sound. It’s not all academics, but certainly starts there. The end has to be bringing “deliverance to the captives” IMHO, or all the academics is pretty much BS. I believe God has limited Himself (at times) to our living for Him. If that is “putting Himself in an awfully small box”, than I agree we have some work to do. And that starts with making sure we are “fools for Christ” and hopefully the pontificators will “put up with fools, being so wise yourselves”, as Paul admonished the Corinthians. As to your statement in your most recent post (#402) (“I think the Bible is only a secondary witness to confirm or deny what we think God is communicating with us through the spirit. Even so, we still have to exercise judgment. To think that the Bible is our primary channel for hearing from God, and to treat it as inerrant, is to shirk from exercising judgment, and to cut ourselves off from the spirit.”), I think that the testimony of Scripture (looking at Jesus and the other prophets) is that they relied on the texts as much as we should. I know Jesus did. You can’t be speaking Psalms 22, 23 and 24 as you’re being crucified and not have that healthy respect to the "finer points". Judgement comes when you have something in mind and can press other thoughts up against that. If you don’t start with something (say the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures) then one will be all over the map trying to figure out what his/her real beliefs are. That being said, if a Muslim or Hindi wants to start with their own text fine, but Christianity usually starts with their texts and “judges” accordingly. And I don’t think that this cuts us off from the spirit in any way, but rather gives direction as to where that spirit might go or might be speaking or taking us. I'm thinking a life led following that spirit is the most exciting (I'm thinking Philip and the eunuch, Elisha and Elijah, Jesus...). In a very subtle sentence in 1 John, he says to “test” the spirits (kinda a combination of both the text and your spirituality, IMHO). I love that combination. Saw it last night at my son’s church in Manhattan as the pastor’s program of hitting the streets actually allowed the kids to “see” things and deliver a women from her maladies because they acted on what they saw. If they didn’t know about receiving revelation (outlined as it is in the Bible) they wouldn’t have even stepped out into the whatever… RE

Yeh, we love how theology infuses the discussion with hyperbole (ultra, Extreme Ultra, etc.) when indeed it just a disagreement with that author's opinion about interpretation. It's like liberals in the political realm with name calling. If they can't make their point, they resort to the same type of hyperbole. Actually it's like anyone who disagrees (if they are not honest and fair or careful). Look what the Sanhedrin did with Stephen! And they didn't allow him to finish, BTW. RE

(Brief aside) If we’re talking about the Biblical “kingdom of God”, it had been coming (back) ever since the woman and the man gave up their dominion as God’s vassals in His feif, the earth (Genesis 1:26 “let them have dominion over…” – not just the man, but both!). The rejection of fealty by our forebears was nothing short of that “high treason” we all heard so much about. The “kingdom” was fleshed out (as were many, many theological concepts) during the time of the prophets and while it was never called “the kingdom of God” in the Hebrew Scriptures, it was understood (ultimately) to be the “throne (kingdom by implication) of David" (see Luke 1:32 “the throne of his (Messiah’s) father David”). So, being a man, Jesus foresaw it just like all the other prophets and when it didn’t quite come to pass as he expected, various reasons were run up the flagpole. As Charlene says, “that’s another topic”, but let’s not say that dispensationalism is a surprise teaching by VP (one of the “various reasons” theologically for Jesus being mistaken…he didn’t know God’s Secret…). It’s roots go back centuries. And it wasn’t just "johnny come lately" point of view. Now, I can’t tell you (actually I can…but not here) how theologically shortsighted I see the following: “If you have a Jesus who predicts the end of the world and it doesn't come, then "the whole Bible falls to pieces..." (I do like the VPism at the end though...). Neither is it Bible gymnastics to read Paul (if we're talking about the Bible folks) and see that there was a Secret that Jesus knew nothing about (“hid from ages and generations”, “not made known unto the sons of men” (Jesus was one of dem), “hid in God” (Jesus wasn't Him), etc). H.ell, if we want to question (and that’s OK, BTW) those methods (a dispensational view of Scripture) we’d better be prepared to go through all the Biblical arguments and all (OK, maybe not all…) the theological literature with a fine toothed comb. Maybe I’ll start another thread on that (then we can all question “VP’s methods”). All I’m saying here is let’s just not be too restrictive here in regards to a theological legacy tainted by licentiousness. Inerrancy is something many, many evangelicals proclaim and have proclaimed for centuries (I can say millennia.. almost), including me. Dispensationalism is a very sound and tested system of Biblical hermeneutics, IMHO, and thousands of theologians, including me, ascribe to it’s tenets. Just because there’s one (oh, there are more than one people…) rotten apple… RE

Yah, I was gonna say it was almost as if you cared about them a little bit...then the last line. Bob

Yeh, but Charlene, everybody did the harmony thing. But for the most part those who tried to put together a harmony of the Gospels did it for what they thought was a good idea. H.e.l.l, Tatian (circa 165 CE) did his Diatessaron and it became THE gospel for the Syriac speaking church for over 2 hundred years! I suppose if one thinks that is a bad thing and that the four (4) records should never be harmonized I can see their point of view (somewhat), but our work (that means you and me while with TWI, BTW) on the Harmony (and the chronolgy that evolved from that) was a really good thing. I have used it many times since it's publication back in 1984 (and our work through 1986 at that research weekend in Rome City). I made sure that my kids had a copy to take with them when they left the house years ago because I thought it was so good. To answer Waysider's question about "specifically" what in TWI was "good"; this was one. Are the Dead Alive now? is another. I read this before I got into TWI and it's still a book (if one can put their proverbial hands on...) that I'd give as a primer to understanding the dead, the resurrections and such. JCOP and JCOPS are good tomes to read about the Death and Birth of Messiah. I'd pass those two on to others. We were working on the middle part of that Trilogy when all the defication hit the rotating oscillator (It was called Jesus Christ our Apostle and High Priest, BTW...and it was never published...though some of us have copies...it's not so good...incomplete research don't ya know). Anyway certainly the bathwater was tainted, but the baby was only taught wrongly in certain areas. Bob

Hey Way, It is always interesting to me that while VP ended up as pretty much a sh_thead spiritually speaking, he was following an interesting path theologically. Sure, he plagiarized and he hustled a lot of people, he was a chameleon in many ways (as to the type of work he was supposed to have done... but it was another's all gussied up)and he wanted his 15 minutes of fame; all in the sh_thead catagory, IMHO. But his recognition of a form of inerrancy, his change to dispensationalism from Reformed Theology, his putting together of some pretty good things in a very simple form cannot be brushed off as no research at all. There was good work that came out of that very bad group. I still use it today with the caveat; the big caveat! RE