I honestly can't see how the same dogma and methods will produce any different results..
The "dogma and methods" that produced the bad results were largely due to the rising influence TVTs (Twi Verbal Traditions) coupled with the declining influence of the written doctrines.
Different results are seen when the TVTs are stripped away and careful study of what is written is adhered to.
You wrote: "here at GS, we have Mike's version of wierwille's 'lost teachings and truths.'"
Two points:
(1) What GS has is me reminding everyone constantly that what they THINK is in the written forms of PFAL is often not there, or at least presented quite differently there. What I constantly point out is that the “lost teachings and truths” are only lost to those who refuse to re-open their books and see what’s in them.
(2) Here at GS you may not have me much longer. So many people complain about my posting that I must either reel in my efforts here at GS or start another website just for getting my points out and available. It has been often suggested that I pack up and leave, and I may do that.
*******
Having said that, I’d rather discuss any more of this in PMs than on the board. That’s all I have time for right now.
I've had to change some doctrines that I've learned in PFAL.
I've seen people defend these doctrines that I now believe to be mistaken, I've done the same thing in times past. If I can I'll give them a break, I'm not enjoying finding error or rubbing anyone's face in it.
I've seen people attack doctrines that I believe to be true. Sometimes it seems that this is done in a mean spirited manner.
Sometimes this is done in a manner that reminds me of "straining at a gnat"; in other words the pointing out of error is in itself making a mountain of a mole hile.
Sometimes it seems that it's done with good intentions and in a respectful manner.
Sometimes it seems to me that I can't possibly make sense out of something that Dr. Wierwille said unless I know the context of the comment. IMO this would be a good practice for those who seek to back up Dr. Wierwille and those who seek to discredit him too.
(added in editing)
Dear Mike, I hope that you continue to post. But you should do whatever you need to do to have the best on-line fellowship that you can.
Will someone please write an exhaustive Wierwille Commentary.......with explanatory notes, annotations, or a treatise on a text narrative of wierwille's work?
I'd rather install Windows Vista on my wife's computer while listening to disco and chewing barbed wire...
You wrote: "here at GS, we have Mike's version of wierwille's 'lost teachings and truths.'"
Two points:
(1) What GS has is me reminding everyone constantly that what they THINK is in the written forms of PFAL is often not there, or at least presented quite differently there. What I constantly point out is that the “lost teachings and truths” are only lost to those who refuse to re-open their books and see what’s in them.
(2) Here at GS you may not have me much longer. So many people complain about my posting that I must either reel in my efforts here at GS or start another website just for getting my points out and available. It has been often suggested that I pack up and leave, and I may do that.
*******
Having said that, I’d rather discuss any more of this in PMs than on the board. That’s all I have time for right now.
Tell me it is true,Please start your own website! Yes,First church of the mikeites.
Mike,I know you know you dont need anyones permission.
If anything it is great to see others point of of view,rather than the"company"line.
One of my favorite lines is something W Cummins said about VP's "literal translations according to usage." (I beleive the quote is in "The Living word Speaks") Cummins said they often "make no sense when read."
Cummins was right. And since they "make no sense when read" it leaves a lot of room to make up what VP meant.
One of my favorite lines is something W Cummins said about VP's "literal translations according to usage." (I believe the quote is in "The Living word Speaks") Cummins said they often "make no sense when read."
Cummins was right. And since they "make no sense when read" it leaves a lot of room to make up what VP meant.
Perhaps you should recheck your memory on your quote.
Page 16 The Living Word Speaks
A researcher must consider the inherent accuracy of the text and then seek to convey the exact thoughts and meanings of the original in current vernacular. Such a rendering is a literal translation according to usage. *16
Note a researcher- not VPW but, a researcher he was talking about.
Then the footnote on *16 which you partially misquoted.
16. A literal translation is a word -for word translation which often makes no sense when read.( note again he did not say VP's translation or VP's literal translation, he said a literal translation which would be any literal there was no mention of VP. (It continues)
A literal translation according to usage reproduces the thoughts and meanings of the original, based on the words in the original in relation to the verse, content, remoter context, and to whom it is addressed.
( note again no mention of VPW only what a researcher ,and a literal translation according to usage is.
(It continues) It is not a free translation or paraphrase which merely gives the gist of the original.
Reading the whole quote we see that Walter was discussing :
1. A researcher only ,not VPW specifically ,could have been himself even as one
2. He never mentioned VPW period in fact anywhere in the quote.
3. He stated What a literal translation was vs a free translation, or a literal translation according to usage.
4. He never stated that VPW translations 'made no sense when read,' he said literal translations (period ) or word for word translations often make no sense when read.
5. He then stated how a literal according to usage is arrived at which did not include as you misstated (it leaves a lot of room to make up what VP meant) anywhere in the definition
In conclusion we see that you misquoted the section, added a person in the quote that was not there, then left out the parts of the quote that did not explain the rest of the quote in order to arrive at your intended meaning. Speaking of "leaving a lot of room to make up what one meant" it appears you were talking about yourself, as you clearly made up this quote not from what was said but what you wanted it to say.
4. He never stated that VPW translations 'made no sense when read,' he said literal translations (period ) or word for word translations often make no sense when read.
Hmmm...He may not have stated it, but I will...Wierwille's literal tranlations often made no sense at all...and when they did they were tailor made to fit into his own preconceived ideas.
WhiteDove...You're not a Wierwille apologist are you?
Hmmm...He may not have stated it, but I will...Wierwille's literal tranlations often made no sense at all...and when they did they were tailor made to fit into his own preconceived ideas.
WhiteDove...You're not a Wierwille apologist are you?
You are entitled to your opinion, I addressed the total fabrication that John posted concerning what he claimed Walter said.
So when one posts what the truth of what was said ,does that make them a Wierwille apologist? Seems to me that it is being honest, truthful, generally sought after qualities. Unless of course they don't promote your agenda ...then they sorta ruin your your plan to just make s**t up I guess.
If Cummins didn't say VP's "literal translations" made no sense when read, he should have.
It's ironic that he said that VP's "literal" translations were not "free" translations. The early editions of RTHST always used the term "free" trabnslations. In later editions he changed all the "free" translations to "literal"... they never changed the wording of the "translations" themselves, just the term he used to refer to them. He wanted to make them sound more accurate and scholarly than they were.
As the years go by.......seems like more splinter groups and ex-twi individuals are coming forward with their versions of wierwille's statements and doctrines. From "the law of believing" to "cancer is a devil spirit".......attempts are made to explain *what wierwille meant* when he stated it.......was it literal?.....or figurative?......or an analogy?.....or simply, a story?
Wierwille's statement about the black snowstorm would fall into this area.
According to wierwille.....after he prayed in that newly renovated office in Payne, Ohio.......when he opened his eyes, it was snowing so thick that it was "pitch black, almost pitch black, outside." Now, some of us have questioned THIS..... for obvious reasons, one of which.....I've seen WHITEOUTS, but never a "black snowstorm." So then, some wierwille defenders come forward and say wierwille meant *it was black outside*....... or it was not literal.
Never mind that wierwille didn't tell anyone about this for some 27 or 28 years!
And, I'm still waiting for someone to explain about wierwille dying of cancer......since he taught in his advanced classes that CANCER IS A DEVIL SPIRIT. Howard's lame explanation that "Dr. Wierwille died of a broken heart" is totally debunked in the face of Wierwille's Death Certificate.
Has twi retracted wierwille's cancer/devil spirit teaching??......
Wierwille's statement about the black snowstorm would fall into this area.
According to wierwille.....after he prayed in that newly renovated office in Payne, Ohio.......when he opened his eyes, it was snowing so thick that it was "pitch black, almost pitch black, outside." Now, some of us have questioned THIS..... for obvious reasons, one of which.....I've seen WHITEOUTS, but never a "black snowstorm." So then, some wierwille defenders come forward and say wierwille meant *it was black outside*....... or it was not literal.
Never mind that wierwille didn't tell anyone about this for some 27 or 28 years!
And, I'm still waiting for someone to explain about wierwille dying of cancer......since he taught in his advanced classes that CANCER IS A DEVIL SPIRIT. Howard's lame explanation that "Dr. Wierwille died of a broken heart" is totally debunked in the face of Wierwille's Death Certificate.
Has twi retracted wierwille's cancer/devil spirit teaching??......
It's nothing short of a theological dilemma.
Choice #1. He was wrong about this and therefore could have been wrong about virtually anything.
Not a good choice regardless of one's stance on theism.
This is further complicated by his own teaching that if a prophet is wrong even once, he is not to be listened to.
Yes, I know, he never called himself a prophet. He did, however, allow his students to believe he got his material by revelation(ie: as a prophet would).
Choice #2. "] He was right and we followed the teachings of a "possessed " man.
If Cummins didn't say VP's "literal translations" made no sense when read, he should have.
It's ironic that he said that VP's "literal" translations were not "free" translations. The early editions of RTHST always used the term "free" trabnslations. In later editions he changed all the "free" translations to "literal"... they never changed the wording of the "translations" themselves, just the term he used to refer to them. He wanted to make them sound more accurate and scholarly than they were.
John you as well are entitled to your opinions, God knows you have posted pages of them. But opinions and claiming others made statements they did not are two different things.
For the record
It's ironic that he said that VP's "literal" translations were not "free" translations.
Again not what Walter said, he said literal translations according to usage are not free translations, no mention of VP in that statement either. The reason being that they are not would be because they include the thoughts and meanings of the original, based on the words in the original in relation to the verse, content, remoter context, and to whom it is addressed. Well another as Oldiesman would say TWI legend put to rest.
and then, a "translation" or "version" is no better than the opinion, character, qualifications, or theology of the one doing the translating or revision.
It might be a real, legitimate degree, but I really don't see how a Master's degree in homiletics qualifies one to be a textual critic, in multiple foreign languages.
Add to that the "preclivities" of der manogawd.. along with the driving passion simply to have something "different" or "exclusive" that he would not have to "back up on.."
that kinda would wreck one's subjectivity, would it not?
He should have known that taking something, and changing its meaning to match your theology and say
"this is what it really meant" is the exclusive domain of vpw.
Well as someone who is quick to point out when someone misspeaks I'd have thought you would appreciate it when the truth was posted. Guess not...... I guess what was really said only is important when it supports a rant about TWI. Personally I think a case at times could be made for literals for both sides of the fence. If they were correct or not would depend on each case. But that was not the issue. The issue at hand was What did Walter say? Did he in fact say what John said he did.
The evidence was found wanting on several levels. First VP was never a part of the quoted section, second the section was misquoted and partially quoted to alter its meaning and intent. Rather than man up and just admit that it was just made up or at least take the safe road and claim faulty memory for a favorite quote (which it seems if it was a favorite one would have got it right) , the response from the peanut gallery was to accuse the one speaking the truth of being a Wierwille apologist. Really? Name calling? is that the best you have? How second grade, Will you next claim my mom wears army boots too? Speaking of matching theology WW, it must be tough when the facts from print just get in the way of someone's opinion. The mission to have all things TWI bad just can't be defeated, even when the print is staring one in the face. So like a grade schooler hey we'll just call them a name to take the spotlight off our error. Is that supposed to somehow discredit what the book states Not Likely.........
He should have known that taking something, and changing its meaning to match your theology and say
"this is what it really meant" is the exclusive domain of vpw.
Dr. Juedes has done this repeatedly. He's taken "the law of believing" taught in the context of how to receive the things of God and tries to make it sound like God wasn't needed, something like some atheistic voodoo belief we were supposedly practicing. Yes shame on Dr. Juedes for twisting the teachings around. He knows better, but when it comes to twi he can't see it.
Dr. Juedes has done this repeatedly. He's taken "the law of believing" taught in the context of how to receive the things of God and tries to make it sound like God wasn't needed, something like some atheistic voodoo belief we were supposedly practicing. Yes shame on Dr. Juedes for twisting the teachings around. He knows better, but when it comes to twi he can't see it.
I agree Oldies but I would have just let John save face despite the truth, and claim faulty memory (on one of his favorite lines no less....) :huh:
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
21
8
13
6
Popular Days
Apr 18
31
Apr 19
22
Apr 22
10
Apr 14
8
Top Posters In This Topic
WhiteDove 21 posts
Ham 8 posts
doojable 13 posts
waysider 6 posts
Popular Days
Apr 18 2008
31 posts
Apr 19 2008
22 posts
Apr 22 2008
10 posts
Apr 14 2008
8 posts
Ham
That's only the half of it. It seems "some" are going as far as attempting to resurrect his supposed life and "ministry".
they regard the class and vic's cut and paste theology as some kind of inheritance, a hidden treasure.
I honestly can't see how the same dogma and methods will produce any different results..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The "dogma and methods" that produced the bad results were largely due to the rising influence TVTs (Twi Verbal Traditions) coupled with the declining influence of the written doctrines.
Different results are seen when the TVTs are stripped away and careful study of what is written is adhered to.
It's pretty simple.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
skyrider,
You wrote: "here at GS, we have Mike's version of wierwille's 'lost teachings and truths.'"
Two points:
(1) What GS has is me reminding everyone constantly that what they THINK is in the written forms of PFAL is often not there, or at least presented quite differently there. What I constantly point out is that the “lost teachings and truths” are only lost to those who refuse to re-open their books and see what’s in them.
(2) Here at GS you may not have me much longer. So many people complain about my posting that I must either reel in my efforts here at GS or start another website just for getting my points out and available. It has been often suggested that I pack up and leave, and I may do that.
*******
Having said that, I’d rather discuss any more of this in PMs than on the board. That’s all I have time for right now.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
i think lots of us would hate to see you go
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I've had to change some doctrines that I've learned in PFAL.
I've seen people defend these doctrines that I now believe to be mistaken, I've done the same thing in times past. If I can I'll give them a break, I'm not enjoying finding error or rubbing anyone's face in it.
I've seen people attack doctrines that I believe to be true. Sometimes it seems that this is done in a mean spirited manner.
Sometimes this is done in a manner that reminds me of "straining at a gnat"; in other words the pointing out of error is in itself making a mountain of a mole hile.
Sometimes it seems that it's done with good intentions and in a respectful manner.
Sometimes it seems to me that I can't possibly make sense out of something that Dr. Wierwille said unless I know the context of the comment. IMO this would be a good practice for those who seek to back up Dr. Wierwille and those who seek to discredit him too.
(added in editing)
Dear Mike, I hope that you continue to post. But you should do whatever you need to do to have the best on-line fellowship that you can.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
I'd rather install Windows Vista on my wife's computer while listening to disco and chewing barbed wire...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
Tell me it is true,Please start your own website! Yes,First church of the mikeites.
Mike,I know you know you dont need anyones permission.
If anything it is great to see others point of of view,rather than the"company"line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
One of my favorite lines is something W Cummins said about VP's "literal translations according to usage." (I beleive the quote is in "The Living word Speaks") Cummins said they often "make no sense when read."
Cummins was right. And since they "make no sense when read" it leaves a lot of room to make up what VP meant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Perhaps you should recheck your memory on your quote.
Page 16 The Living Word Speaks
A researcher must consider the inherent accuracy of the text and then seek to convey the exact thoughts and meanings of the original in current vernacular. Such a rendering is a literal translation according to usage. *16
Note a researcher- not VPW but, a researcher he was talking about.
Then the footnote on *16 which you partially misquoted.
16. A literal translation is a word -for word translation which often makes no sense when read.( note again he did not say VP's translation or VP's literal translation, he said a literal translation which would be any literal there was no mention of VP. (It continues)
A literal translation according to usage reproduces the thoughts and meanings of the original, based on the words in the original in relation to the verse, content, remoter context, and to whom it is addressed.
( note again no mention of VPW only what a researcher ,and a literal translation according to usage is.
(It continues) It is not a free translation or paraphrase which merely gives the gist of the original.
Reading the whole quote we see that Walter was discussing :
1. A researcher only ,not VPW specifically ,could have been himself even as one
2. He never mentioned VPW period in fact anywhere in the quote.
3. He stated What a literal translation was vs a free translation, or a literal translation according to usage.
4. He never stated that VPW translations 'made no sense when read,' he said literal translations (period ) or word for word translations often make no sense when read.
5. He then stated how a literal according to usage is arrived at which did not include as you misstated (it leaves a lot of room to make up what VP meant) anywhere in the definition
In conclusion we see that you misquoted the section, added a person in the quote that was not there, then left out the parts of the quote that did not explain the rest of the quote in order to arrive at your intended meaning. Speaking of "leaving a lot of room to make up what one meant" it appears you were talking about yourself, as you clearly made up this quote not from what was said but what you wanted it to say.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Hmmm...He may not have stated it, but I will...Wierwille's literal tranlations often made no sense at all...and when they did they were tailor made to fit into his own preconceived ideas.
WhiteDove...You're not a Wierwille apologist are you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
You are entitled to your opinion, I addressed the total fabrication that John posted concerning what he claimed Walter said.
So when one posts what the truth of what was said ,does that make them a Wierwille apologist? Seems to me that it is being honest, truthful, generally sought after qualities. Unless of course they don't promote your agenda ...then they sorta ruin your your plan to just make s**t up I guess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
they are sought after if you don't have them...sometimes....
one can also be honestly truthfully a liar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
If Cummins didn't say VP's "literal translations" made no sense when read, he should have.
It's ironic that he said that VP's "literal" translations were not "free" translations. The early editions of RTHST always used the term "free" trabnslations. In later editions he changed all the "free" translations to "literal"... they never changed the wording of the "translations" themselves, just the term he used to refer to them. He wanted to make them sound more accurate and scholarly than they were.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Shame on John.
He should have known that taking something, and changing its meaning to match your theology and say
"this is what it really meant" is the exclusive domain of vpw.
Even as an innie, I thought he was saying things the verses didn't say when he provided his
"literal according to usage" things.
Small wonder people would make up things and call them "translation according to misusage."
Of course, lcm did it. I wonder if lcm STARTED it or just jumped on the bandwagon.
In its own way, when he did it, it was a bit more honest, since it was obvious he was just
saying whatever he wanted.
One of lcm's examples:
Galatians 5:9 (King James Version)
9A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
lcm's self-identified "translation according to misusage:"
"A little leaven lumpeth you up good.
He then went on directly to talk about when "you get your lumps."
There was no smokescreen of "I wish you could see it in the original."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Wierwille's statement about the black snowstorm would fall into this area.
According to wierwille.....after he prayed in that newly renovated office in Payne, Ohio.......when he opened his eyes, it was snowing so thick that it was "pitch black, almost pitch black, outside." Now, some of us have questioned THIS..... for obvious reasons, one of which.....I've seen WHITEOUTS, but never a "black snowstorm." So then, some wierwille defenders come forward and say wierwille meant *it was black outside*....... or it was not literal.
Never mind that wierwille didn't tell anyone about this for some 27 or 28 years!
And, I'm still waiting for someone to explain about wierwille dying of cancer......since he taught in his advanced classes that CANCER IS A DEVIL SPIRIT. Howard's lame explanation that "Dr. Wierwille died of a broken heart" is totally debunked in the face of Wierwille's Death Certificate.
Has twi retracted wierwille's cancer/devil spirit teaching??......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's nothing short of a theological dilemma.
Choice #1. He was wrong about this and therefore could have been wrong about virtually anything.
Not a good choice regardless of one's stance on theism.
This is further complicated by his own teaching that if a prophet is wrong even once, he is not to be listened to.
Yes, I know, he never called himself a prophet. He did, however, allow his students to believe he got his material by revelation(ie: as a prophet would).
Choice #2. "] He was right and we followed the teachings of a "possessed " man.
Again, not a very comforting thought.
Is there a third choice I may have missed?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
John you as well are entitled to your opinions, God knows you have posted pages of them. But opinions and claiming others made statements they did not are two different things.
For the record
Again not what Walter said, he said literal translations according to usage are not free translations, no mention of VP in that statement either. The reason being that they are not would be because they include the thoughts and meanings of the original, based on the words in the original in relation to the verse, content, remoter context, and to whom it is addressed. Well another as Oldiesman would say TWI legend put to rest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"WHO'S 'scruffy-looking'?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Is it not customary for one to avoid the usage of "first person" when writing such phrases as " A researcher must consider, etc.-----"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
and then, a "translation" or "version" is no better than the opinion, character, qualifications, or theology of the one doing the translating or revision.
It might be a real, legitimate degree, but I really don't see how a Master's degree in homiletics qualifies one to be a textual critic, in multiple foreign languages.
Add to that the "preclivities" of der manogawd.. along with the driving passion simply to have something "different" or "exclusive" that he would not have to "back up on.."
that kinda would wreck one's subjectivity, would it not?
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Gee, since I spoke truthfully about what Walter said and John did not I guess you would need to take that up with him Cman.
You see qualities exist because they are provable ,not because they agree with your idea of who you like or dislike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Well as someone who is quick to point out when someone misspeaks I'd have thought you would appreciate it when the truth was posted. Guess not...... I guess what was really said only is important when it supports a rant about TWI. Personally I think a case at times could be made for literals for both sides of the fence. If they were correct or not would depend on each case. But that was not the issue. The issue at hand was What did Walter say? Did he in fact say what John said he did.
The evidence was found wanting on several levels. First VP was never a part of the quoted section, second the section was misquoted and partially quoted to alter its meaning and intent. Rather than man up and just admit that it was just made up or at least take the safe road and claim faulty memory for a favorite quote (which it seems if it was a favorite one would have got it right) , the response from the peanut gallery was to accuse the one speaking the truth of being a Wierwille apologist. Really? Name calling? is that the best you have? How second grade, Will you next claim my mom wears army boots too? Speaking of matching theology WW, it must be tough when the facts from print just get in the way of someone's opinion. The mission to have all things TWI bad just can't be defeated, even when the print is staring one in the face. So like a grade schooler hey we'll just call them a name to take the spotlight off our error. Is that supposed to somehow discredit what the book states Not Likely.........
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Dr. Juedes has done this repeatedly. He's taken "the law of believing" taught in the context of how to receive the things of God and tries to make it sound like God wasn't needed, something like some atheistic voodoo belief we were supposedly practicing. Yes shame on Dr. Juedes for twisting the teachings around. He knows better, but when it comes to twi he can't see it.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I agree Oldies but I would have just let John save face despite the truth, and claim faulty memory (on one of his favorite lines no less....)
:huh:
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.