My impression is that you?d really like to see Dr grovel for your forgiveness, and anything less won?t satisfy. To you I say the same thing I once said to Exy, and that is if you were to get what you think you want, the next day you?d want it again.
I have seen a few things Dr placed in the record that satisfies me that he was aware of the inefficiencies he allowed to exist in his behavior and that he felt bad about it. In your present state of blood thirst, these items will not help you.
*****************************
Exy,
Why bother to state the obvious?
*****************************
Goey,
I think you wish that the word ?necessarily? was not placed in there on page 83. If it were not there, I?d be giving Chubby Checker a run for his money.
In the tape version of the class Dr VERY deliberately places ?necessarily? where it is, and the wording is almost identical.
That one word ?necessarily? sets up a local contra-context, from which you feel the twist. It?s a tiny island where the context is exactly reversed.
.
.
P.S. This was the THIRD time I posted this analysis of PFAL page 83. How is it that THIS time it's "most dishonest twistings of language that I have ever seen" when it's been posted twice before? Maybe, like PFAL, there are pieces of my message that have slipped by unnoticed or not understood.
quote:P.S. This was the THIRD time I posted this analysis of PFAL page 83. How is it that THIS time it's "most dishonest twistings of language that I have ever seen" when it's been posted twice before? Maybe, like PFAL, there are pieces of my message that have slipped by unnoticed or not understood.
Mike, I did indeed see it before, it was just as dishonet then as it is now. However, on the previous occasions I was content to let others address it. This time I chose to comment. So much for you little theory.
One of the problems with it Mike, it that it is a circular argument. From the outset you treat Herr Docktor's grammar in PFAL as if it is God-breathed and perfect in order to prove that PFAL is God- breathed and perfect.
As someone so well studied that they could teach Stephen Hawking lessons on quatum comosology and M-theory, you should know better than to promote a circular argument like this - much less base doctrine upon it.
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
The bottom line is that Dr did say "Thus saith the Lord" on many occasions and in many ways, and he didn't contradict himself in saying we should be wary of all flesh pronouncements, including any of his own.
Now, if it were the case that I held this consistency up as a proof of content, THEN your objection would be valid. I merely claim consistency here. I believe it was dizzydog who tried to show an inconsistency, and I simply showed the contradiction to be only apparent.
I have no feelings regarding the dead guy. I don't want an apology. I was just guiding you towards looking for information in all that "hidden until now crap" that GS might find interesting. Lord knows the stuff your hocking is tired. Tired, Tired, Tired...
"The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever. It endures, it stands. Let's see this from John 5:39. "Search the scriptures...." It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille's writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, "Search the scriptures..." because all scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed.
I think Wierwille put "necessarily" in there because he believed or wanted others to believe that it was "possible" for him to write from inspiration. - just as possible for him as it was for the others he mentioned, like Luther, Luther, Wesley etc. . I have no problem with that. It is certainly possible that God could inspire any one of us to write.
In the last sentence, Wierwille uses a semicolon after, "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed". Then he lists these other folks but omits the word 'necessarily'. This according to Bullinger is is the figure of speech - eplipsis or omission. We could add the word "necessarily" before "what Calvin said" - and not change the sense of the sentence. It would then read:
Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not [necessarily] what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed.
In fact, you could rearange the names in any order and not change the sense of what Wierwille was saying here.
After he list these men the then says 'but'.
BUT! BUT! BUT! ... IN CONTRAST to what all these men have written - It is the Scriptures that are God-breathed and it is the Scriptures that are to be searched (and mastered.)
The thrust and point of Wirewille's message here is that the works of men - including Luther, Wesley, Calvin, etc - and Wierwille himself; even though they 'could' be God-breathed (inspired) - are not scripture. They are not in the Bible and are not a part of the canon of scripture. And rather than rely on the works of men (Wierwille includes himself), we are to search the Bible (scriptures) - "so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology."
Mike, it seems that because of your seeking for "hidden messages" and because of your presumptions necessary to support your theories, that you have missed the actual message that Wierwille was really attempting to make. You got it exactly reversed from what Wierwille was trying to teach here in PFAL.
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
This thread is going to exceed even the THE threads in length and continuence. In that Mike is like the energizer bunny and just won't give up in his claims, and apparently there are folks who just won't give up trying to get Mike to give up. This isn't really a criticism, just an observation of amazement.
Maybe I should get in contact with Ribley's Believe It Or Not!, or the Guiness Book of World's Records.
I'm on the outside of this thread...and I'm not known for my scholarship.
However, from where I read....it looks like Mike is trying to write a book....and have all of you critique it for him before it goes to press. I looks like he wants to write one similar to "Dr.'s" but avoid the plaigerism tag.
I would be deluded to think that Mike would ever say uncle - no matter what evidence was presented or what arguments were made.
But look at it this way - it can be a good opportunity to hone one's reasoning and debating skills. It is kinda like debating with Chwester in the Politics Forum - it is fruitless for the most part, but it can sometimes be fun and it can also be a learning experience.
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Everyone - Notice how slippery Mike deflected attention away from the truth that he can't explain Wierwille's simile of the supercession of the worlds?
The truth of the matter is, Mike can't explain the simile because it doesn't make any real sense, as it would if it had been God-breathed.
Mike would rather discuss Wierwille's use of "necessarily", a departure from the topic of this thread, than pursue the truth to its inevitable conclusion, that PFAL is not God-breathed.
quote: Mike would rather discuss Wierwille's use of "necessarily", a departure from the topic of this thread, than pursue the truth to its inevitable conclusion, that PFAL is not God-breathed.
Steve, let us take a better look at what you just said. I think you will see the importance of this word.
Now if we take out the word "necessarily" and ignore the punctuation rearrange the words and then put "necessarily" back into the sentence under study and see what we get.
"Wierwille's use of thread is not necessarily a departure from the truth that Mike is God, rather discuss the topic than pursue the inevitable conclusion: from to a -breathed its PFAL would not."
I know Iknow I know
the conclusion may seem a little confusing to you and maybe a little shocking being that you have never read anything like this before it and that you may not have known about VPs needle point abilities, but there in lies the ubiquitouly hidden teaching of VPW!!!!!!!
Now even a greater truth.
Let us now take out the word "necessarily". Now see what we have:
"Mike is God"
SEE WHAT I MEAN!! It fits like a hand in a glove and boy does it feel nice. Man! What an exciting day and time to be living in!
Please take a moment and take in what I have just said and please
Any chance he'll start examining the works of Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham, and Roberts for God-breathed content since, according to Mike's interpretation of PFAL page 83, Wierwille said they are in the same category as his writings?
Nah.
'Course, we could discuss it with him if this were a discussion board.
I see those names handled differently on that page 83 of PFAL. There's no use of the word "necessarily" associated with them. I looked at them long ago with this in mind, and excluded them from further consideration.
I don't mind discussing things a bit, but when people demand a high degree of proof and rigor from me, I must examine their motives. If they want learning, I engage. If they want to tear down, I decline.
"The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever. It endures, it stands. Let's see this from John 5:39. "Search the scriptures...." It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille's writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, "Search the scriptures..." because all scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed.
Mike, the above is an obvious ellipsis. The missing words, when re-supplied, would make the sentence read, "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said would necessarily be God-breathed, nor what Luther said would be necessarily God-breathed," etc. Sorry, but if you are going to infer that some of VPW's writings are God-breathed, then you are going to have to accord the same respect to these other men. Or "your whole Bible would fall to pieces!"
So sorry if I don't bring this to light with the proper amount of humility and love for VPW that you have. Sheesh, you feel a serial sexual abuser's words should be considered with diligence, but mine just aren't up to snuff. LOL, somehow, I'm not too upset....
Shazdancer, Gooey, WordWolf, et.al. - You've done an excellent job of addressing the errors in Mike's interpretation... and it *is* just Mike's interpretation... of Wierwille's statement from page 83 of PFAL. I've got only a few minor observations to add to what you've already posted.
First, regarding the "not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts" construction. The ellipsis is not primarily of the adverb "necessarily", but of the verb "will be". Not only does the adverb "necessarily" modify the missing "will be", it is *embedded* within the verb; "will necessarily be". We can't resupply the verb without also resupplying the adverb.
In his post of June 02, 2003, 02:21, on this thread, Mike wrote, "I see those names handled differently... There's no use of the word 'necessarily' associated with them." Mike, you were wrong.
Second, in the analysis Mike posted on page 17 of this thread, on May 31, 2003, 21:04, he wrote, "The sentence is: 'Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.'"
Mike's quote is inaccurate. The sentence is actually "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; nor what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed."
Now the phrase "nor what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts" is a nonrestrictive parenthetical construction, and as such, can be left out without effecting the basic sense of the sentence. However, the second independent clause, "but the Scriptures - they are God breathed" is an integral part of the sentence which cannot be ignored. Later on, we'll see how this effects Mike's misinterpretation.
Third, Mike makes an error in excluding the meaning "None that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed."
The phrase "not all" implies three possibilities; "all", "some" and "none". Of these three possibilities, the phrase "not all" excludes only one, and that is "all".
Mike wrote, "The second sentence [None that Wierwille writes will nessarily be God-breathed.] is rather strained grammar and logic." It might be a little more euphoneous if the sentence had been stated "None of what Wierwille writes..." rather than "None that Wierwille writes...", but there is nothing wrong with the grammar or logic of Mike's second sentence.
Putting Mike's second sentence into its original setting, we get "None that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed." The purpose of the sentence is to contrast Wierwille's writings, which may or may not be God-breathed, with the Scriptures, which are definitely God-breathed. Mike's erroneous interpretation sets exactly what Wierwille wrote on its head.
Fourth, Mike presented two possible interpretations:
"Some that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed."
"None that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed."
Mike went on to write "It [the second sentence] also radically contradicts what Dr. wrote on page 34 of the Green Book: '...you will find that every word I have written to you is true.'"
What Mike fails to realize is that the *first* sentence radically contradicts "Dr." also. If "every word I have written to you is true" is true, then to say that only "some that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed" would have to be false. If only "some that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed" is true, then "every word I write to you is true" would have to be false.
The only way Mike could make the two quotations consonant would be to restate the first as "All that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." However, this is the one construal excluded by the phrase "not all".
There was another word besides "necessarily" that set off the statement about Dr as different than the list of others near him.
In your "restored-from-obvious-ellipsis" sentence, you acknowledge this distinction in that this OTHER critical word STILL sets off the Wierwille statement from the statement associated with the list of others.
Here is YOUR reconstructed ?that?s-what-he-REALLY-meant? sentence:
"Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed;
not what Calvin said would necessarily be God-breathed,
nor what Luther said would be necessarily God-breathed,"
Do you see the critical word?
It?s ?all? as in ?not ALL that Wierwille writes....?
I think it?s time for you to go back to the ellipsis drawing board.
This time try thinking it through more thoroughly.
I?d also suggest you have more to back up your detection of an ellipsis than the word ?obvious.? Your entire assumption here is not at all obvious to me, and I reject t it.
I'm now off to work, and will read your most recent post again later today.
But while I'm gone you can think about the question I?ve asked you several times so far with no answer.
Why do you want to focus totally on that one passage in the Blue Book, when I?ve repeatedly told you there are many more passages to consider? My question is why are you so silent on bringing in those many other passages?
********************
I stand by my paraphrase of PFAL page 83.
Re-stated in most simple form it simply says what would have to be said in the situation, had any Biblical writer been under consideration.
It says exactly what we would have expected would have been said of any writer God selects to take down His Word in written form. Where that selected man was in obedience to God, his words are His Words. Where that man was not in obedience to God, then his words were only his words.
I?m betting my life that Dr?s writings in PFAL are FAR different and better than anyone?s writings since the first century.
Okay, so amend my paraphrase to read "will" instead of "would." I caught that myself just after I sent it, but didn't think it made a difference in my point, so I didn't fix it.
Mike,
I just wish you could read it in the original. Oh wait, you are reading it in the original. I just wish you could read!
The saddest part of it is, you are staking your life on this.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
82
119
656
81
Popular Days
Jun 15
86
Jul 3
73
Jul 12
50
Mar 31
49
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 82 posts
mj412 119 posts
Mike 656 posts
Steve Lortz 81 posts
Popular Days
Jun 15 2003
86 posts
Jul 3 2003
73 posts
Jul 12 2003
50 posts
Mar 31 2003
49 posts
Popular Posts
Yanagisawa
Did you say "get the ball rolling" or get the kaballa rolling...for it sounds like that's your current freak - some sort of hidden, mystical kaballa-esque gnostic esotericism. I'm fascinated with you
Goey
Mike,
That is one of the most dishonest twistings of language that I have ever seen.
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
karmicdebt,
My impression is that you?d really like to see Dr grovel for your forgiveness, and anything less won?t satisfy. To you I say the same thing I once said to Exy, and that is if you were to get what you think you want, the next day you?d want it again.
I have seen a few things Dr placed in the record that satisfies me that he was aware of the inefficiencies he allowed to exist in his behavior and that he felt bad about it. In your present state of blood thirst, these items will not help you.
*****************************
Exy,
Why bother to state the obvious?
*****************************
Goey,
I think you wish that the word ?necessarily? was not placed in there on page 83. If it were not there, I?d be giving Chubby Checker a run for his money.
In the tape version of the class Dr VERY deliberately places ?necessarily? where it is, and the wording is almost identical.
That one word ?necessarily? sets up a local contra-context, from which you feel the twist. It?s a tiny island where the context is exactly reversed.
.
.
P.S. This was the THIRD time I posted this analysis of PFAL page 83. How is it that THIS time it's "most dishonest twistings of language that I have ever seen" when it's been posted twice before? Maybe, like PFAL, there are pieces of my message that have slipped by unnoticed or not understood.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike, I did indeed see it before, it was just as dishonet then as it is now. However, on the previous occasions I was content to let others address it. This time I chose to comment. So much for you little theory.
One of the problems with it Mike, it that it is a circular argument. From the outset you treat Herr Docktor's grammar in PFAL as if it is God-breathed and perfect in order to prove that PFAL is God- breathed and perfect.
As someone so well studied that they could teach Stephen Hawking lessons on quatum comosology and M-theory, you should know better than to promote a circular argument like this - much less base doctrine upon it.
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
mike, i'm allowed to talk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Exy,
I agree. But if you come to tear down, I can deflect your efforts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
The bottom line is that Dr did say "Thus saith the Lord" on many occasions and in many ways, and he didn't contradict himself in saying we should be wary of all flesh pronouncements, including any of his own.
Now, if it were the case that I held this consistency up as a proof of content, THEN your objection would be valid. I merely claim consistency here. I believe it was dizzydog who tried to show an inconsistency, and I simply showed the contradiction to be only apparent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
Mike,
I have no feelings regarding the dead guy. I don't want an apology. I was just guiding you towards looking for information in all that "hidden until now crap" that GS might find interesting. Lord knows the stuff your hocking is tired. Tired, Tired, Tired...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Mike - - why are you here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike,
I think Wierwille put "necessarily" in there because he believed or wanted others to believe that it was "possible" for him to write from inspiration. - just as possible for him as it was for the others he mentioned, like Luther, Luther, Wesley etc. . I have no problem with that. It is certainly possible that God could inspire any one of us to write.
In the last sentence, Wierwille uses a semicolon after, "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed". Then he lists these other folks but omits the word 'necessarily'. This according to Bullinger is is the figure of speech - eplipsis or omission. We could add the word "necessarily" before "what Calvin said" - and not change the sense of the sentence. It would then read:
In fact, you could rearange the names in any order and not change the sense of what Wierwille was saying here.
After he list these men the then says 'but'.
BUT! BUT! BUT! ... IN CONTRAST to what all these men have written - It is the Scriptures that are God-breathed and it is the Scriptures that are to be searched (and mastered.)
The thrust and point of Wirewille's message here is that the works of men - including Luther, Wesley, Calvin, etc - and Wierwille himself; even though they 'could' be God-breathed (inspired) - are not scripture. They are not in the Bible and are not a part of the canon of scripture. And rather than rely on the works of men (Wierwille includes himself), we are to search the Bible (scriptures) - "so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology."
Mike, it seems that because of your seeking for "hidden messages" and because of your presumptions necessary to support your theories, that you have missed the actual message that Wierwille was really attempting to make. You got it exactly reversed from what Wierwille was trying to teach here in PFAL.
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
This thread is going to exceed even the THE threads in length and continuence. In that Mike is like the energizer bunny and just won't give up in his claims, and apparently there are folks who just won't give up trying to get Mike to give up. This isn't really a criticism, just an observation of amazement.
Maybe I should get in contact with Ribley's Believe It Or Not!, or the Guiness Book of World's Records.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I'm on the outside of this thread...and I'm not known for my scholarship.
However, from where I read....it looks like Mike is trying to write a book....and have all of you critique it for him before it goes to press. I looks like he wants to write one similar to "Dr.'s" but avoid the plaigerism tag.
Of course, what do I know?
krys
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Garth,
I would be deluded to think that Mike would ever say uncle - no matter what evidence was presented or what arguments were made.
But look at it this way - it can be a good opportunity to hone one's reasoning and debating skills. It is kinda like debating with Chwester in the Politics Forum - it is fruitless for the most part, but it can sometimes be fun and it can also be a learning experience.
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i'm just an enabler by nature...... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Everyone - Notice how slippery Mike deflected attention away from the truth that he can't explain Wierwille's simile of the supercession of the worlds?
The truth of the matter is, Mike can't explain the simile because it doesn't make any real sense, as it would if it had been God-breathed.
Mike would rather discuss Wierwille's use of "necessarily", a departure from the topic of this thread, than pursue the truth to its inevitable conclusion, that PFAL is not God-breathed.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
thank you steve and logical thinkers
i can only say that i'm not a smart researcher but i DO get what it's like to see love in a person or godliness or whatever ya wanna call it
wierwille does not fit the bill, sorry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Steve, let us take a better look at what you just said. I think you will see the importance of this word.
Now if we take out the word "necessarily" and ignore the punctuation rearrange the words and then put "necessarily" back into the sentence under study and see what we get.
"Wierwille's use of thread is not necessarily a departure from the truth that Mike is God, rather discuss the topic than pursue the inevitable conclusion: from to a -breathed its PFAL would not."
I know Iknow I know
the conclusion may seem a little confusing to you and maybe a little shocking being that you have never read anything like this before it and that you may not have known about VPs needle point abilities, but there in lies the ubiquitouly hidden teaching of VPW!!!!!!!
Now even a greater truth.
Let us now take out the word "necessarily". Now see what we have:
"Mike is God"
SEE WHAT I MEAN!! It fits like a hand in a glove and boy does it feel nice. Man! What an exciting day and time to be living in!
Please take a moment and take in what I have just said and please
no questions till the end of the thread.
It don't mean a thing if it ain't PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
True.
Mike's very good at doing his best to try to
draw attention to that which he is UNABLE to
defend. You remember when he stated OUTRIGHT
what his policy was, some time ago-
distract, deflect, evade-but never admit an
error is an error.
Since he is unable to answer Steve's question,
Steve's question is "unimportant". Since Goey
pointed out that he violated vpw's own rules of
taking the CONTEXT into account when trying to
make a theology out of the placement of the
word "necessarily" in one sentence, Goey's
guilty of disregarding a "local contra-context."
What IS a "local contra-context", BTW? Must be
a new term made up to obfuscate the fact that
Mike's own vocabulary of legitimate terms isn't
up to keeping pace with Goey's own assertions.
Mike's been pretty consistent in disregarding
ANY part of PFAL (which, according to Mike, is
God-breathed) which invalidates his position.
------------------------------------------
Any chance we'll see him actually address
Steve's perfectly legitimate question about
realms superceding each other, and their use
as an analogy? Doubtful.
It's either "umimportant" or a "dishonest
question" or some other vague accusation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Any chance he'll start examining the works of Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham, and Roberts for God-breathed content since, according to Mike's interpretation of PFAL page 83, Wierwille said they are in the same category as his writings?
Nah.
'Course, we could discuss it with him if this were a discussion board.
Hey, wait a minute...
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
shazancer,
I see those names handled differently on that page 83 of PFAL. There's no use of the word "necessarily" associated with them. I looked at them long ago with this in mind, and excluded them from further consideration.
I don't mind discussing things a bit, but when people demand a high degree of proof and rigor from me, I must examine their motives. If they want learning, I engage. If they want to tear down, I decline.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Mike, the above is an obvious ellipsis. The missing words, when re-supplied, would make the sentence read, "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said would necessarily be God-breathed, nor what Luther said would be necessarily God-breathed," etc. Sorry, but if you are going to infer that some of VPW's writings are God-breathed, then you are going to have to accord the same respect to these other men. Or "your whole Bible would fall to pieces!"
So sorry if I don't bring this to light with the proper amount of humility and love for VPW that you have. Sheesh, you feel a serial sexual abuser's words should be considered with diligence, but mine just aren't up to snuff. LOL, somehow, I'm not too upset....
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Shazdancer, Gooey, WordWolf, et.al. - You've done an excellent job of addressing the errors in Mike's interpretation... and it *is* just Mike's interpretation... of Wierwille's statement from page 83 of PFAL. I've got only a few minor observations to add to what you've already posted.
First, regarding the "not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts" construction. The ellipsis is not primarily of the adverb "necessarily", but of the verb "will be". Not only does the adverb "necessarily" modify the missing "will be", it is *embedded* within the verb; "will necessarily be". We can't resupply the verb without also resupplying the adverb.
In his post of June 02, 2003, 02:21, on this thread, Mike wrote, "I see those names handled differently... There's no use of the word 'necessarily' associated with them." Mike, you were wrong.
Second, in the analysis Mike posted on page 17 of this thread, on May 31, 2003, 21:04, he wrote, "The sentence is: 'Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.'"
Mike's quote is inaccurate. The sentence is actually "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; nor what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed."
Now the phrase "nor what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts" is a nonrestrictive parenthetical construction, and as such, can be left out without effecting the basic sense of the sentence. However, the second independent clause, "but the Scriptures - they are God breathed" is an integral part of the sentence which cannot be ignored. Later on, we'll see how this effects Mike's misinterpretation.
Third, Mike makes an error in excluding the meaning "None that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed."
The phrase "not all" implies three possibilities; "all", "some" and "none". Of these three possibilities, the phrase "not all" excludes only one, and that is "all".
Mike wrote, "The second sentence [None that Wierwille writes will nessarily be God-breathed.] is rather strained grammar and logic." It might be a little more euphoneous if the sentence had been stated "None of what Wierwille writes..." rather than "None that Wierwille writes...", but there is nothing wrong with the grammar or logic of Mike's second sentence.
Putting Mike's second sentence into its original setting, we get "None that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed." The purpose of the sentence is to contrast Wierwille's writings, which may or may not be God-breathed, with the Scriptures, which are definitely God-breathed. Mike's erroneous interpretation sets exactly what Wierwille wrote on its head.
Fourth, Mike presented two possible interpretations:
"Some that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed."
"None that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed."
Mike went on to write "It [the second sentence] also radically contradicts what Dr. wrote on page 34 of the Green Book: '...you will find that every word I have written to you is true.'"
What Mike fails to realize is that the *first* sentence radically contradicts "Dr." also. If "every word I have written to you is true" is true, then to say that only "some that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed" would have to be false. If only "some that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed" is true, then "every word I write to you is true" would have to be false.
The only way Mike could make the two quotations consonant would be to restate the first as "All that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." However, this is the one construal excluded by the phrase "not all".
Batters up, Mike.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
shazdancer,
There was another word besides "necessarily" that set off the statement about Dr as different than the list of others near him.
In your "restored-from-obvious-ellipsis" sentence, you acknowledge this distinction in that this OTHER critical word STILL sets off the Wierwille statement from the statement associated with the list of others.
Here is YOUR reconstructed ?that?s-what-he-REALLY-meant? sentence:
"Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed;
not what Calvin said would necessarily be God-breathed,
nor what Luther said would be necessarily God-breathed,"
Do you see the critical word?
It?s ?all? as in ?not ALL that Wierwille writes....?
I think it?s time for you to go back to the ellipsis drawing board.
This time try thinking it through more thoroughly.
I?d also suggest you have more to back up your detection of an ellipsis than the word ?obvious.? Your entire assumption here is not at all obvious to me, and I reject t it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve,
I'm now off to work, and will read your most recent post again later today.
But while I'm gone you can think about the question I?ve asked you several times so far with no answer.
Why do you want to focus totally on that one passage in the Blue Book, when I?ve repeatedly told you there are many more passages to consider? My question is why are you so silent on bringing in those many other passages?
********************
I stand by my paraphrase of PFAL page 83.
Re-stated in most simple form it simply says what would have to be said in the situation, had any Biblical writer been under consideration.
It says exactly what we would have expected would have been said of any writer God selects to take down His Word in written form. Where that selected man was in obedience to God, his words are His Words. Where that man was not in obedience to God, then his words were only his words.
I?m betting my life that Dr?s writings in PFAL are FAR different and better than anyone?s writings since the first century.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Hi Steve,
Okay, so amend my paraphrase to read "will" instead of "would." I caught that myself just after I sent it, but didn't think it made a difference in my point, so I didn't fix it.
Mike,
I just wish you could read it in the original. Oh wait, you are reading it in the original. I just wish you could read!
The saddest part of it is, you are staking your life on this.
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.