Vic's definition of epiluo, letting the dogs loose on the game, was correct, but his interpretation of the definition was wrong.
The purpose of hunting dogs is to locate where the game is and flush it out, not attack it like a pack of wolves. They make known to the hunter where the game is so the hunter can apprehend it. It is uncovering something that is hidden.
The section in Peter where "private interpretation" is used is more properly "one's own making known." The point is, the scriptures were not mens' ideas of God, it was the invisible God making known himself via the prophets of old.
It has nothing to do with interpretation of what they wrote.
Given that Vic was a lover of hunting dogs, and hunting with them, he should have known this. His twisting of it to promote his interpretation style of the Bible, which only promoted his ideas, is negligent at best, but more properly flat out dishonest.
The example "letting dogs loose upon the game" was not a definition, but an illustration. It was correct as far as the "letting loose" part, but the emphasis should have been on the act of releasing the dogs, not the dogs' actions once loose.
Vic got itb from Bullinger, who got it from a non-biblical Greek writer, but Vic didn't really understand Bullinger, or intentionally misrepresented him.
I don't believe it was an illustration. I believe it was a profane greek usage. I could be wrong, but I've seen it elsewhere outside of TWI and Bullinger.
We find Xenophon using it of letting dogs loose upon the ground to chase a hare. Another Greek writer uses it of breaking open a letter bearing upon a certain subject.
I find it amazing how our minds are 'built' by the metaphor of our language.
But given an entirely different set of words linked to an other set of metaphor, and trying to understand that light through that 'different window'. Is interesting.
For one to say; "let loose the dogs", and your mental image would possibly be one of dogs running wild in all directions.
To another to say: "let loose the dogs", and their mental image might well be one of them charging forward to: find, pursue, define and isolate the target that they seek.
I would well imagine yet another culture wherein saying: "let loose the dogs", would be used in the context of a hard jerk forward as the dogs leap to pull you along, you and sled across the tundra that is.
It is both amazing and interesting how sometimes to shift from our 'western' mindset into that 'Eastern' mindset is so easily hindered.
Someday I will share an exhaustive word-study that our fellowship did on 'marriage'. It simply did not go in any direction that we could have predicted. And yet I have many times heard things taught which would be in direct conflict, with what the Bible clearly says.
Aparently using dogs for hunting and farming tasks hasn't changed much over the years (with the exception of Eskimos, who probably didn't frequent Rome that much).
Where Wierwille goes wacky is the conclusion. Remember "if you & I dare not interpret it, there are only two possibilities: either no interpretation is possible or it must interpret itself."
WOW. BOOOOGUS!
A simple word study of "interpretation" & "Interpret" shows what the above verses show: The interpretation belongs to God. And Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would teach us, lead us into all truth. Frankly, I'm amazed at his obliqueness in missing the glaringly obvious.
The section in Peter where "private interpretation" is used is more properly "one's own making known." The point is, the scriptures were not mens' ideas of God, it was the invisible God making known himself via the prophets of old.
It has nothing to do with interpretation of what they wrote.
Given that Vic was a lover of hunting dogs, and hunting with them, he should have known this. His twisting of it to promote his interpretation style of the Bible, which only promoted his ideas, is negligent at best, but more properly flat out dishonest.
Bob, that makes so much sense and is much more accurate than I was thinking. I was hung up on the "interpretation" aspect of the lesson taught. I was on the right track, but had not gotten the true essence as you have done. I also totally missed this quote from Bullinger which would have helped in my understanding and "discussions" with those in TWI had it registered in my brain:
quote:
Thus, the words are brought into harmony with the scope, or subject of the whole passage; and we see how they refer to the origin and source of the prophetic Word, and not to its meaning or interpretation.
Thanks! I appreciate your time and insight.
Galen, I would love to see your work on marriage and anything else you've worked on. I feel pretty inadequate when it comes to major doctrinal discussions but I'm sort of seeing how that attitude comes from years of being second-guessed and made to feel like I'm inferior intelligence-wise to my ex and the TWIt leaders.
I feel pretty inadequate when it comes to major doctrinal discussions but I'm sort of seeing how that attitude comes from years of being second-guessed and made to feel like I'm inferior intelligence-wise to my ex and the TWIt leaders.
From what I've seen of your work on this subject, and others you have posted on, you appear to be a rather intelligent woman. You're right about TWI making you feel inferior. I've felt the same, as I'm sure most everyone has.
The feeling of inadequacy will go away. It requires rethinking everything TWI threw at you and looking for answers to questions you forgot you ever had, but you do eventually get to the point where you wonder how you ever got duped by that group.
"Galen, I would love to see your work on marriage and anything else you've worked on. I feel pretty inadequate when it comes to major doctrinal discussions but I'm sort of seeing how that attitude comes from years of being second-guessed and made to feel like I'm inferior intelligence-wise to my ex and the TWIt leaders."
Being second-guessed and made to feel inferior is not anything that should have happened anywhere in life. I am sorry that such happened to you.
Yes I understand, from my reading here on Greasespot Cafe that these things were common among fellowships in TWI. If I did not respect and empower Bonnie, then going out to sea and leaving her with the fellowship and investments at home, would have been much more difficult.
I was once criticized here on Greasespot Cafe, but I do see marriage as more of a business partnership. Bonnie has specific roles and I have specific roles. My roles and hers are different, neither is more important than the other, they are just different. She is the steward of my household when I am not present. She carries my General Power of Attorney, and as such, Bonnie often does our banking. Bonnie has bought houses in my name, she has owned businesses, and she is very capable on her own. I don’t know if our marriage would be as solid as it is, if I did not respect Bonnie and hold her as having very important opinion, skills and knowledge. She is an excellent bookkeeper, she is a certified teacher [K-12], and she is our 'bread-winner'.
Bonnie and I are together because ‘WE’ prosper far more than either of us could alone. It is far cheaper for two to live together as a team, than for them to live apart. As a team ‘WE’ are capable of doing more, seeing more and prospering more.
She decided to heartily take on the role of 'bread-winner', while she was leading a lady's weekend once in Virginia in 1982. The idea of being responsible for providing food and clothing for her household; while buying and selling land, employing her own servants, and running her own business; was something that she wanted to do, and she has done. Who am I to take her roles away from her? She found them from the scripture and it would be wrong of me to even think of taking away from someone their 'duties'. I provide housing and transportation. It totally upsets my father [who is a Baptist] that I am not the 'bread-winner'. But you read Proverbs and tell me how to walk away still thinking that a man is supposed to cloth and feed the family.
How could a man, any man, wish to ‘yolk’ himself with a woman who he did not respect? Or why would a woman wish to yoke with a man who dis-respected her? Bonnie and I have traveled together for years. She is a constant influence in my life [aside from Our Lord]. Many times our fellowships have been just her and I. She ‘sees’ things in The Word, that I might not, only if I am open to her can she teach me. Now obviously she does not contradict me in public, as such would be disgracing me, I don’t think that such would have ever occurred to her. She respects me as well :-)
The entire ‘Christian’ community gets this topic goofy. In Christ we are equally yoked. Look in any Bible dictionary and see what it says about ‘Harlot’. Everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon and claim that all harlots are prostitutes. But does the Bible say that? Well, no. It does say that Rahab was an harlot, though. It also says that she was righteous. Do you know how many people are named ‘righteous’ in the Bible? Very few. Prostitution = sin, Harlot= righteous, so somehow those Bible dictionaries are missing something. Besides we are talking about the ‘Christ-line’ here right? The grandmother of David. And what about Deborah the tailor’s wife? Wasn’t she a Prophet of God?
I do agree that in general a man should be the ‘Head of the Household’, though picture the military. NO, hold it right there. Some reading this will have already formed in their minds what the military is like, well shut up and go join the marines. People are always talking about “the way it is done in the military” and they are so often full of $hit. Watching the movies is good for entertainment, but not to learn about life.
The military is a huge corporation; they will train people sometimes for years to do their job. Do you think they are going to allow some aristocratically born nobleman to then order a highly trained technician to march into machinegun fire? [Well again, maybe in the marines]
If your training took two years to learn how to handle that nuclear reactor, and you are expected to know everything there is on how best to do things with that nuclear reactor, then why would you be expected to follow the orders of some ignorant idiot who wants to polish his own ego, just because his training included how to hold a teacup with a pinky sticking out?
If I am the ‘System Expert’ on system ‘A’, then anyone onboard who wants to know what system ‘A’ can do, must ask me. The Captain may ‘want’ to go and do a thing, and he may well ‘order’ me saying: “Petty Officer Young go and use system ‘A’ to do blah”.
Now I can say: “Aye Aye, Captain”.
Or I can say: “Aye Captain, though may I point out that system ‘A’ is not designed to do that task and it would more easily be done by using system ‘B’, sir”.
Or I could say: “Aye, Captain I believe that System ‘B’ would be faster, and I can immediately accomplish the task using system ‘B’, if I may, sir”.
Now if he is a complete idiot he has the option of directing me the continue using system ‘A’ to attempt to accomplish the task. Or if he respects me [and my technical skills] he will consider my advice and direct me to perform the task by whatever method is most expedient.
If a husband wants to be an idiot, than he can ignore his wife as an important partner in his life; a valuable resource, a capable assistant, and a deep pool of knowledge, But in so doing he will prove himself to be an idiot. If a woman ‘wants’ to marry such a man, I am sorry about the choice, I would have to imagine that she will eventually regret making that choice.
Yeppers regarding leadership with no training thinking they knew better than those with actual knowledge about a subject. I'm going to post something on that sometime soon. :)-->
It was a profane greek usage, which is where Bullinger got it from:<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR><A HREF="http://philologos.org/__eb-htetb/201.htm" TARGET=_blank>How To Enjoy The Bible</A> <BR>We find Xenophon using it of letting dogs loose upon the ground to chase a hare. Another Greek writer uses it of breaking open a letter bearing upon a certain subject.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That still doesn't indicate that the word epiluo necessarily has to concern hunting dogs, just as the word "kick" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with @sses, even though it can be of "kicking foot"
I'm sure that Xenophon and others used the word in other contexts.
Anyway, my point is that the word simply means "to let loose", "to break open"...maybe even to unveil or reveal. It can be used to describe unleashing dogs or opening letters. Other uses of it in the gospels describe Jesus using it to expound:
We find Xenophon using it of letting dogs loose upon the ground to chase a hare. Another Greek writer uses it of breaking open a letter bearing upon a certain subject. So that its usage is perfectly clear so far. In the New Testament this verb occurs only twice (Mark 4:34 and Acts 19:39). From Mark 4:34 it is evident that it will bear the AV rendering expound* but it will also bear a larger meaning. He spake publicly "with many such parables," but "when they were alone," He broke open the casket which hid His real meaning; He unfolded the treasures that were therein; He let them loose as it were and displayed them before the eyes of His disciples.
This whole things is a great example of how Wierwille copied from others without any real understanding and how many wayfers slavishly followed Wierwille without ever questioning him. It got to the point in the 980's where people were teaching the illustration and not the chapter and verse.
Recommended Posts
Bob
Vic's definition of epiluo, letting the dogs loose on the game, was correct, but his interpretation of the definition was wrong.
The purpose of hunting dogs is to locate where the game is and flush it out, not attack it like a pack of wolves. They make known to the hunter where the game is so the hunter can apprehend it. It is uncovering something that is hidden.
The section in Peter where "private interpretation" is used is more properly "one's own making known." The point is, the scriptures were not mens' ideas of God, it was the invisible God making known himself via the prophets of old.
It has nothing to do with interpretation of what they wrote.
Given that Vic was a lover of hunting dogs, and hunting with them, he should have known this. His twisting of it to promote his interpretation style of the Bible, which only promoted his ideas, is negligent at best, but more properly flat out dishonest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The example "letting dogs loose upon the game" was not a definition, but an illustration. It was correct as far as the "letting loose" part, but the emphasis should have been on the act of releasing the dogs, not the dogs' actions once loose.
Vic got itb from Bullinger, who got it from a non-biblical Greek writer, but Vic didn't really understand Bullinger, or intentionally misrepresented him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob
I don't believe it was an illustration. I believe it was a profane greek usage. I could be wrong, but I've seen it elsewhere outside of TWI and Bullinger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob
It was a profane greek usage, which is where Bullinger got it from:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
I find it amazing how our minds are 'built' by the metaphor of our language.
But given an entirely different set of words linked to an other set of metaphor, and trying to understand that light through that 'different window'. Is interesting.
For one to say; "let loose the dogs", and your mental image would possibly be one of dogs running wild in all directions.
To another to say: "let loose the dogs", and their mental image might well be one of them charging forward to: find, pursue, define and isolate the target that they seek.
I would well imagine yet another culture wherein saying: "let loose the dogs", would be used in the context of a hard jerk forward as the dogs leap to pull you along, you and sled across the tundra that is.
It is both amazing and interesting how sometimes to shift from our 'western' mindset into that 'Eastern' mindset is so easily hindered.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Belle-
Someday I will share an exhaustive word-study that our fellowship did on 'marriage'. It simply did not go in any direction that we could have predicted. And yet I have many times heard things taught which would be in direct conflict, with what the Bible clearly says.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob
Is Greece considered Eastern? Not sure about it.
But, if you want to know about dogs in ancient Greece and Rome, I suggest: Dogs in Ancient Greece and Rome
Aparently using dogs for hunting and farming tasks hasn't changed much over the years (with the exception of Eskimos, who probably didn't frequent Rome that much).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
That was a brilliant post Bob.
Where Wierwille goes wacky is the conclusion. Remember "if you & I dare not interpret it, there are only two possibilities: either no interpretation is possible or it must interpret itself."
WOW. BOOOOGUS!
A simple word study of "interpretation" & "Interpret" shows what the above verses show: The interpretation belongs to God. And Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would teach us, lead us into all truth. Frankly, I'm amazed at his obliqueness in missing the glaringly obvious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Bob, that makes so much sense and is much more accurate than I was thinking. I was hung up on the "interpretation" aspect of the lesson taught. I was on the right track, but had not gotten the true essence as you have done. I also totally missed this quote from Bullinger which would have helped in my understanding and "discussions" with those in TWI had it registered in my brain:
Thanks! I appreciate your time and insight.
Galen, I would love to see your work on marriage and anything else you've worked on. I feel pretty inadequate when it comes to major doctrinal discussions but I'm sort of seeing how that attitude comes from years of being second-guessed and made to feel like I'm inferior intelligence-wise to my ex and the TWIt leaders.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob
From what I've seen of your work on this subject, and others you have posted on, you appear to be a rather intelligent woman. You're right about TWI making you feel inferior. I've felt the same, as I'm sure most everyone has.
The feeling of inadequacy will go away. It requires rethinking everything TWI threw at you and looking for answers to questions you forgot you ever had, but you do eventually get to the point where you wonder how you ever got duped by that group.
You're on the right track.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Belle:
"Galen, I would love to see your work on marriage and anything else you've worked on. I feel pretty inadequate when it comes to major doctrinal discussions but I'm sort of seeing how that attitude comes from years of being second-guessed and made to feel like I'm inferior intelligence-wise to my ex and the TWIt leaders."
Being second-guessed and made to feel inferior is not anything that should have happened anywhere in life. I am sorry that such happened to you.
Yes I understand, from my reading here on Greasespot Cafe that these things were common among fellowships in TWI. If I did not respect and empower Bonnie, then going out to sea and leaving her with the fellowship and investments at home, would have been much more difficult.
I was once criticized here on Greasespot Cafe, but I do see marriage as more of a business partnership. Bonnie has specific roles and I have specific roles. My roles and hers are different, neither is more important than the other, they are just different. She is the steward of my household when I am not present. She carries my General Power of Attorney, and as such, Bonnie often does our banking. Bonnie has bought houses in my name, she has owned businesses, and she is very capable on her own. I don’t know if our marriage would be as solid as it is, if I did not respect Bonnie and hold her as having very important opinion, skills and knowledge. She is an excellent bookkeeper, she is a certified teacher [K-12], and she is our 'bread-winner'.
Bonnie and I are together because ‘WE’ prosper far more than either of us could alone. It is far cheaper for two to live together as a team, than for them to live apart. As a team ‘WE’ are capable of doing more, seeing more and prospering more.
She decided to heartily take on the role of 'bread-winner', while she was leading a lady's weekend once in Virginia in 1982. The idea of being responsible for providing food and clothing for her household; while buying and selling land, employing her own servants, and running her own business; was something that she wanted to do, and she has done. Who am I to take her roles away from her? She found them from the scripture and it would be wrong of me to even think of taking away from someone their 'duties'. I provide housing and transportation. It totally upsets my father [who is a Baptist] that I am not the 'bread-winner'. But you read Proverbs and tell me how to walk away still thinking that a man is supposed to cloth and feed the family.
How could a man, any man, wish to ‘yolk’ himself with a woman who he did not respect? Or why would a woman wish to yoke with a man who dis-respected her? Bonnie and I have traveled together for years. She is a constant influence in my life [aside from Our Lord]. Many times our fellowships have been just her and I. She ‘sees’ things in The Word, that I might not, only if I am open to her can she teach me. Now obviously she does not contradict me in public, as such would be disgracing me, I don’t think that such would have ever occurred to her. She respects me as well :-)
The entire ‘Christian’ community gets this topic goofy. In Christ we are equally yoked. Look in any Bible dictionary and see what it says about ‘Harlot’. Everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon and claim that all harlots are prostitutes. But does the Bible say that? Well, no. It does say that Rahab was an harlot, though. It also says that she was righteous. Do you know how many people are named ‘righteous’ in the Bible? Very few. Prostitution = sin, Harlot= righteous, so somehow those Bible dictionaries are missing something. Besides we are talking about the ‘Christ-line’ here right? The grandmother of David. And what about Deborah the tailor’s wife? Wasn’t she a Prophet of God?
I do agree that in general a man should be the ‘Head of the Household’, though picture the military. NO, hold it right there. Some reading this will have already formed in their minds what the military is like, well shut up and go join the marines. People are always talking about “the way it is done in the military” and they are so often full of $hit. Watching the movies is good for entertainment, but not to learn about life.
The military is a huge corporation; they will train people sometimes for years to do their job. Do you think they are going to allow some aristocratically born nobleman to then order a highly trained technician to march into machinegun fire? [Well again, maybe in the marines]
If your training took two years to learn how to handle that nuclear reactor, and you are expected to know everything there is on how best to do things with that nuclear reactor, then why would you be expected to follow the orders of some ignorant idiot who wants to polish his own ego, just because his training included how to hold a teacup with a pinky sticking out?
If I am the ‘System Expert’ on system ‘A’, then anyone onboard who wants to know what system ‘A’ can do, must ask me. The Captain may ‘want’ to go and do a thing, and he may well ‘order’ me saying: “Petty Officer Young go and use system ‘A’ to do blah”.
Now I can say: “Aye Aye, Captain”.
Or I can say: “Aye Captain, though may I point out that system ‘A’ is not designed to do that task and it would more easily be done by using system ‘B’, sir”.
Or I could say: “Aye, Captain I believe that System ‘B’ would be faster, and I can immediately accomplish the task using system ‘B’, if I may, sir”.
Now if he is a complete idiot he has the option of directing me the continue using system ‘A’ to attempt to accomplish the task. Or if he respects me [and my technical skills] he will consider my advice and direct me to perform the task by whatever method is most expedient.
If a husband wants to be an idiot, than he can ignore his wife as an important partner in his life; a valuable resource, a capable assistant, and a deep pool of knowledge, But in so doing he will prove himself to be an idiot. If a woman ‘wants’ to marry such a man, I am sorry about the choice, I would have to imagine that she will eventually regret making that choice.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thanks, Galen!
Yeppers regarding leadership with no training thinking they knew better than those with actual knowledge about a subject. I'm going to post something on that sometime soon.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
YEAH!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
yeah that either/or sucks-why not look at things from many pov's?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I'm sure that Xenophon and others used the word in other contexts.
Anyway, my point is that the word simply means "to let loose", "to break open"...maybe even to unveil or reveal. It can be used to describe unleashing dogs or opening letters. Other uses of it in the gospels describe Jesus using it to expound:
This whole things is a great example of how Wierwille copied from others without any real understanding and how many wayfers slavishly followed Wierwille without ever questioning him. It got to the point in the 980's where people were teaching the illustration and not the chapter and verse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1956.htm
the actual greek word used-
1955 epilusis { ep-il’-oo-sis}
from 1956; TDNT - 4:337,543; n f
AV - interpretation 1; 1
GK - 2146 { ejpivlusi" }
1) a loosening, unloosing
2) metaph. interpretation
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.