I didn't say anything about anyone in particular whitedove.
Quit making what I say into what you want it to be.
Which has been and continues to be what you do constantly.
You have no idea what I think about much at all.
Well had you thought to post what you did on your own rather than a response to what I stated you might have a case for belief.. as it is your intent was clear..
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......
Did I pretend he didn't say it, or was misinterpreted and was correct all along?
I said he changed the meaning.
I said shame on him.
Are you holding out for a tarring and feathering?
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.
A) "Peanut gallery" is name-calling.
B) I didn't say it, but you're mentioning it in response to MY post, as if I had something to do with it.
C) That post began with admitting wc probably never said it, which WAS your point.
D) You ARE engaging in "apologetics" for vpw. I don't see how that qualifies as an insult.
If someone sees someone use their left-hand, and calls them a left-hander, is that an insult?
Really? Name calling? is that the best you have? How second grade, Will you next claim my mom wears army boots too?
I still haven't called YOU anything.
You may or may not have called me "peanut gallery" or "second grade"- this post certainly suggests you are.
Is misrepresenting my posts-and others posts, accusing them and me of insulting you,
and calling US names the best YOU have?
Speaking of matching theology WW, it must be tough when the facts from print just get in the way of someone's opinion.
I adjust my opinion to match the facts, when the facts contradict the opinion. I've been doing that a long time.
Even when I don't LIKE the facts. Because they are the facts.
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.........
It gets tiresome to keep hearing the fiction that I keep trying to have "all things TWI" called "bad."
Since I've pointed out, many times, I was glad I got IN AND glad I got OUT,
I can't tell if that's someone skipping MANY of my posts,
someone rewriting my posts in their mind (like adding comments from another person's post into mine)
or someone intentionally distorting my posts (like adding comments from another person's post into mine.)
BTW, I STILL don't see "name-calling"- except "like a grade-schooler" IS one.
What are YOU trying to take the spotlight off at the moment?
Oh, and what the books state do a fine job of discrediting what the books state.
I can see Juedes point though. If "believing" is so wonderful, what DO you need God for? I mean, well, He has to weigh in every once in a while to supposedly HAVE to energize your believing or something..
but I think the vey turned him into an impersonal, emotionless, holy "spook" who was only a RESOURCE.
"God is BOUND to honor his word.."
What's He get in return of all of this? Love? Fellowship? The JOY of having a "family"?
Oh, I forgot. God is supposed to be spirit. Can't experience joy, love, fellowship, tenderness.. that's only for humans..
The mentality baffles me. It's almost like people think they are in the "God" game, and get dealed a royal flush every hand just because it suits THEM..
So I'll put the burden where I think it really belongs.
"Where are the RESULTS?"
Go ahead.. operate "the law of believing" with the supposed over 900 promises.. just for altruistic reasons. Let's see the hospitals cleaned out, the slums miraculously rejuvenated, etc. etc..
People play the game, claim they've got the winning hand.. let's see the cards..
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:
Actually, I prefer actually seeing what the Blue Book says, and what the Orange Book says,
then seeing what Juedes said and seeing if they agree.
First of all,
vpw made it clear that his so-called "law of believing" worked just as well for the Christian as the non-Christian,
and worked equally well for things there were no promises of God connected to.
vpw's theology of the so-called "law of believing" made God either irrelevant- since either he was FORCED to bring to pass
the results of any person's believing- Christian or non-Christian,
or the results were equally effective without God, which meant God was superfluous.
Thus, as vpw taught and wrote his so-called "law of believing", God wasn't needed- the "LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE"
were forced to give people what they believed for.
So, that part about Juedes is correct- vpw's system said God wasn't needed to receive- since the "believing" worked
equally well without him. That means the system is independent of God, that no God, or god, is needed in the system.
(Juedes explained that himself, but Oldies was too busy filibustering him to even CONSIDER whether or not it was
correct.) Thus, the system is, technically, "atheistic." It matches other "belief" systems that don't require a God-or a god-
to operate. As for working "like voodoo", I think that's an inaccurate representation of what Juedes said-
feel free to prove me wrong on that, but be very specific if you claim it.
Since Juedes was correct, shame on Oldiesman for continually LYING about it and refusing to admit that Juedes was right.
I don't think it's bad for Oldies to have been wrong. His dysfunctional response- HIDE THE ERROR, SHOOT THE MESSENGER,
and CLAIM TRUTH for KNOWN ERROR is just plain bad. I wouldn't bring it up, but he's trying to invent errors on Juedes'
behalf again. He seems to have convinced someone it's true just through repeating it.
That's sad.
Oldiesman SHOULD know better, but when it comes to someone correcting vpw's theology, he REFUSES to see it.
WD should be able to see the differences, too. However, he's too busy with his apologetics to see it- or possibly he
DOES see it and refuses to acknowledge it. I don't think that's healthy for him.
I forgot to mention a few other scriptures taught in the context of the law of believing:
Remember these scriptures from the Class?:
Rom 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:
Rom 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Rom 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
Being strong in faith giving glory to God, and being fully persuaded that what God has promised he was able also to perform, was a vital key in understanding and practicing "the law of believing" as taught in PFAL.
This speaks for itself, and reasonable and intelligent folks who practiced these truths can judge for themselves whether the system was atheistic.
WhiteDove...You're not a Wierwille apologist are you?
White Dove - this reads as a question and not name-calling. I guess for me it falls in the "if the shoe fits" category. I think that had you asked a question of someone and they got as offended as you have over this question here, you'd be fuming. *I think* but I don't know you, just how you post.
Has anyone ever read the The Amplified Bible? It reads like a whole book of literals according to usuage. Here's an example:
Phil 3:13(Amplified Bible)
13. I do not consider, brethren, that I have captured and made it my own [yet]; but one thing I do [it is my one aspiration]: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,
14. I press on toward the goal to win the [supreme and heavenly] prize to which God in Christ Jesus is calling us upward.
15. So let those [of us] who are spiritually mature and full-grown have this mind and hold these convictions; and if in any respect you have a different attitude of mind, God will make that clear to you also.
Compare that to the KJV we all got so used to:
13. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14. I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
15. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.
The first copyright of the Amplified Bible was in 1954. It does make me wonder.... It would be interesting to compare some of twi's "literals according to usage" and compare them to the Amplified Bible's handling. (I don't have any to compare or I would do it myself.) It may go nowhere - but then again, who knows where that rabbit hole could lead.
This speaks for itself, and reasonable and intelligent folks who practiced these truths can judge for themselves whether the system was atheistic.
I think the real issue that speaks for itself, is that can reasonable and intelligent folks who practiced these supposed truths can judge for themselves- did it WORK? You know. REAL, TANGIBLE bonifide, verifiable right down where one lives RESULTS? That was what was promised by the way..
No fluff, no pie in the sky when I die..
so you got the front parking spot at wally mart.. "wow.. I'm cookin today.."
what about the fifty other times you had to walk from the back lot?
I dunno. I think that kind of spirituality is rather shallow and immature.
I think it is a brand of spirituality which is most easily practiced when one is lucky enough to be young, healthy, employed, or independantly wealthy..
Create Your Very Own Commentary For Fun And Profit.
First you quote a scripture.
Then you expound upon what it "REALLY" means.
Perhaps you use some Greek words to give weight to your assertion.
Maybe you elaborate on some long forgotten "custom" or social mores of ancient times.
You might even translate it as a total package and explain that this is how you feel it should be translated in order to convey its essence in modern vernacular. (In other words, "adjust it for inflation.")
That's what is commonly called Bible commentary.
Get it? It's commenting on The Bible.
It's exactly what Wierwille did.
He was highly critical of others who did the same thing.
When others did it, he called it private interpretation and insisted it was unacceptable.
White Dove - this reads as a question and not name-calling. I guess for me it falls in the "if the shoe fits" category. I think that had you asked a question of someone and they got as offended as you have over this question here, you'd be fuming. *I think* but I don't know you, just how you post.
Has anyone ever read the The Amplified Bible? It reads like a whole book of literals according to usuage. Here's an example:
Phil 3:13(Amplified Bible)
13. I do not consider, brethren, that I have captured and made it my own [yet]; but one thing I do [it is my one aspiration]: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,
14. I press on toward the goal to win the [supreme and heavenly] prize to which God in Christ Jesus is calling us upward.
15. So let those [of us] who are spiritually mature and full-grown have this mind and hold these convictions; and if in any respect you have a different attitude of mind, God will make that clear to you also.
Compare that to the KJV we all got so used to:
13. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14. I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
15. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.
The first copyright of the Amplified Bible was in 1954. It does make me wonder.... It would be interesting to compare some of twi's "literals according to usage" and compare them to the Amplified Bible's handling. (I don't have any to compare or I would do it myself.) It may go nowhere - but then again, who knows where that rabbit hole could lead.
It may be a question, but it was not an honest one , If I had a dime for every time I have been refered to as such I be a rich man I've lost count how many times I have corrected that idea, it was not a mistake. While in the way on occasion I recall the use of the Amplified Bible in teachings. I own one and use it often.
Loved Koko the clown video. Reminds me of Wierwille teaching of Christian Family and Sex, and that's not milk in that cup, it's DRAMBRIUE. I thought the monkey was LCM
If it was an honest question, it required no answer from you.
If it wasn't an honest question, then you took the bait by answering it.
The truth is that you do seem to come out in defense of vp more often than not. Is that in and of itself a problem? I dunno.
As far as vp's honesty in researching goes... well it was more than apparent to me that he built pf al on Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible. (It was years and years later that I saw Kenyon's and Stiles's works.) I always questioned (even back then) how folks railed against commentaries but soaked up "literals according to usage" like sponges.
BTW, when I first was introduced to the Amplified Bible, I hated it. I still don't really care for it. It just seems like another mediated experience. It's like watching a National Geographic special on the Grand Canyon and thinking that now you've been there.
It may be a question, but it was not an honest one
Actually...it WAS an honest question.
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?
Nope...Can't think of any other choices...I think you covered both possibilities...unless WhiteDove has another explanation?
No it does not, the shoe you described seems to be a different model , you see mine that was offered had a Wierwille model added on it. Now it seems we were discussing what Walter said. Last time I looked they were not the same person. That would make being a Wierwille apologist difficult by reason of the fact that he was not the principle person in the discussion, in fact as I pointed out the supposed quote was not about Wierwille at all but about a researcher. That fails the test by definition of Wierwille apologist. I made no case for Wierwille.
If it wasn't an honest question, then you took the bait by answering it.
Your right I did take the bait, My choice.... that does not change the honesty of the question. I generally respond to misconceptions about me when posted...again ,my choice.
The truth is that you do seem to come out in defense of vp more often than not. Is that in and of itself a problem? I dunno.
That may be your perception not mine I come out in defense of what is true .
Truth is truth no matter who may have said it. You wanna label me a apologist for truth........ Fine. Defending truth is not one in the same as defending Wierwille which was the charge. Nor do I believe that every time someone corrects a misstatement that qualifies them as a apologist. In this case I defended the truth of what was stated, who stated it was not the issue, nor was it important, what was ,is that it was restated correctly and truthfully. And as pointed out it had nothing to do with Wierwille at all. At best one could assume I was a Cummins apologist maybe . That would be the difference.
No it does not, the shoe you described seems to be a different model , you see mine that was offered had a Wierwille model added on it. Now it seems we were discussing what Walter said. Last time I looked they were not the same person. That would make being a Wierwille apologist difficult by reason of the fact that he was not the principle person in the discussion, in fact as I pointed out the supposed quote was not about Wierwille at all but about a researcher. That fails the test by definition of Wierwille apologist. I made no case for Wierwille.
Actually, since it was about a supposed remark disparaging vpw, it applies.
Any vpw apologist would jump in right where you did.
(You're a grown adult-you can see this.)
Your right I did take the bait, My choice.... that does not change the honesty of the question. I generally respond to misconceptions about me when posted...again ,my choice.
That may be your perception not mine I come out in defense of what is true .
Truth is truth no matter who may have said it. You wanna label me a apologist for truth........ Fine. Defending truth is not one in the same as defending Wierwille which was the charge. Nor do I believe that every time someone corrects a misstatement that qualifies them as a apologist. In this case I defended the truth of what was stated, who stated it was not the issue, nor was it important, what was ,is that it was restated correctly and truthfully. And as pointed out it had nothing to do with Wierwille at all. At best one could assume I was a Cummins apologist maybe . That would be the difference.
Of course, EVERY apologist claims they are "an apologist for truth."
And, saying it "had NOTHING to do with Wierwille AT ALL" is not true.
Are we supposed to consider it an astonishing coincidence that your posts of apologetics
all just happen to arrive when vpw or his doctrines enter the room?
Actually, since it was about a supposed remark disparaging vpw, it applies.
Any vpw apologist would jump in right where you did.
(You're a grown adult-you can see this.)
Of course, EVERY apologist claims they are "an apologist for truth."
It does not, that is the point of the argument to correct the misconception that it applies to VPW it doesn't, it clearly reads a researcher, and if one wanted to attach a name to the point it would be Walter.
And, saying it "had NOTHING to do with Wierwille AT ALL" is not true.
Are we supposed to consider it an astonishing coincidence that your posts of apologetics
all just happen to arrive when VPW or his doctrines enter the room?
My posts arrive when things are distorted into half truths or outright lies, the are not limited to Wierwille or Way doctrines. If someone put words in your mouth I would do the same. It has nothing to do with like or dislike of the person. Although admittedly it is an easier task when the one in question is likeable. Claiming the truth as you point out and providing the written truth are not one in the same ,I provided the factual record and it was wanting.
First, thanks White Dove for posting the quote from "The Living Word Speaks". I believe that having the actual quotes, rather than faulty memories of them, is better for all concerned. Our motives undoubtedly differ, but there you go.
But we disagree on whether Walter's quote is about Wierwille or not. "A researcher" is referenced in a book about Wierwille's contributions to biblical research in a discussion about "literal translations according to usage", a term that as far as I know was invented by Wierwille, and you think that he's not talking abgout Wierwille? Of course his neutral language can equally apply to other researchers, but in TWI, who was THE researcher?
John brings up a good point though on the supposed difference between "free" translations and "literal according to usage" translations...the same translations are called both things in Wierwille's books.
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.
Okay, well in the interest of truth, (and just for chits and giggles, as well) I'd like to know what led up to this conversation about some unnamed, studious, "researcher."
In other words, I'd like to read the paragraph or two that led up to W^lter talking about what a literal according to usage is.
It may go nowhere. It may answer some questions on either side. I never read the book so I don't have a clue as to what I'm asking for here - just that it would set some bigger context.
Isn't it odd that this thread sat kinda quietly until that quote entered the room?
First, thanks White Dove for posting the quote from "The Living Word Speaks". I believe that having the actual quotes, rather than faulty memories of them, is better for all concerned. Our motives undoubtedly differ, but there you go.
But we disagree on whether Walter's quote is about Wierwille or not. "A researcher" is referenced in a book about Wierwille's contributions to biblical research in a discussion about "literal translations according to usage", a term that as far as I know was invented by Wierwille, and you think that he's not talking abgout Wierwille? Of course his neutral language can equally apply to other researchers, but in TWI, who was THE researcher?
While it is true that "A Researcher "could include VPW ,many here would argue that he was not one at all thus disqualifying him from inclusion. I suppose if one wanted to argue that in a sense everything on GreaseSpot eventually had a tie to Wierwille at some point they could make a case. Perhaps "nothing to do with Wierwille" was a poor choice of words in that respect. The point was/and is Walters words were not exclusive to VP as John wanted us to believe. I do not believe that Walter was saying that VPW literals made no sense. His point was to show that literals often are rough in their translation while literals according to usage are more flowing. His intent was not to disparage VPW in any way. I'm not sure literal according to usage is a Way term exclusively, It seems that it is not but honestly I would need to look into it more
John brings up a good point though on the supposed difference between "free" translations and "literal according to usage" translations...the same translations are called both things in Wierwille's books.
I have no disagreement with his point it is factual from the printed material. as such it is true. I would offer this for thought, perhaps at the point he wrote those chapters VP believed that they were free translations, possibly he learned better and changed his words. I know it's difficult for some to accept that he could ever learn anything being the horrible person he was, but it just might be possible you know? Perhaps he changed the terminology because he realized it was wrong, perhaps it was not even him that suggested it be done, maybe Rhoda. Again because he changed the terminology does not as John would have us believe indicate deception. He may have simply corrected a mistake.
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
WhiteDove
Well had you thought to post what you did on your own rather than a response to what I stated you might have a case for belief.. as it is your intent was clear..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
This is what I responded to.
And my intent is to point it out in a different light.
Without any malice.
If you want to make it into something else.
Knock yourself out fella, you are wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Did I pretend he didn't say it, or was misinterpreted and was correct all along?
I said he changed the meaning.
I said shame on him.
Are you holding out for a tarring and feathering?
A) "Peanut gallery" is name-calling.B) I didn't say it, but you're mentioning it in response to MY post, as if I had something to do with it.
C) That post began with admitting wc probably never said it, which WAS your point.
D) You ARE engaging in "apologetics" for vpw. I don't see how that qualifies as an insult.
If someone sees someone use their left-hand, and calls them a left-hander, is that an insult?
I still haven't called YOU anything.
You may or may not have called me "peanut gallery" or "second grade"- this post certainly suggests you are.
Is misrepresenting my posts-and others posts, accusing them and me of insulting you,
and calling US names the best YOU have?
I adjust my opinion to match the facts, when the facts contradict the opinion. I've been doing that a long time.Even when I don't LIKE the facts. Because they are the facts.
It gets tiresome to keep hearing the fiction that I keep trying to have "all things TWI" called "bad."
Since I've pointed out, many times, I was glad I got IN AND glad I got OUT,
I can't tell if that's someone skipping MANY of my posts,
someone rewriting my posts in their mind (like adding comments from another person's post into mine)
or someone intentionally distorting my posts (like adding comments from another person's post into mine.)
BTW, I STILL don't see "name-calling"- except "like a grade-schooler" IS one.
What are YOU trying to take the spotlight off at the moment?
Oh, and what the books state do a fine job of discrediting what the books state.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I can see Juedes point though. If "believing" is so wonderful, what DO you need God for? I mean, well, He has to weigh in every once in a while to supposedly HAVE to energize your believing or something..
but I think the vey turned him into an impersonal, emotionless, holy "spook" who was only a RESOURCE.
"God is BOUND to honor his word.."
What's He get in return of all of this? Love? Fellowship? The JOY of having a "family"?
Oh, I forgot. God is supposed to be spirit. Can't experience joy, love, fellowship, tenderness.. that's only for humans..
The mentality baffles me. It's almost like people think they are in the "God" game, and get dealed a royal flush every hand just because it suits THEM..
So I'll put the burden where I think it really belongs.
"Where are the RESULTS?"
Go ahead.. operate "the law of believing" with the supposed over 900 promises.. just for altruistic reasons. Let's see the hospitals cleaned out, the slums miraculously rejuvenated, etc. etc..
People play the game, claim they've got the winning hand.. let's see the cards..
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually, I prefer actually seeing what the Blue Book says, and what the Orange Book says,
then seeing what Juedes said and seeing if they agree.
First of all,
vpw made it clear that his so-called "law of believing" worked just as well for the Christian as the non-Christian,
and worked equally well for things there were no promises of God connected to.
vpw's theology of the so-called "law of believing" made God either irrelevant- since either he was FORCED to bring to pass
the results of any person's believing- Christian or non-Christian,
or the results were equally effective without God, which meant God was superfluous.
Thus, as vpw taught and wrote his so-called "law of believing", God wasn't needed- the "LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE"
were forced to give people what they believed for.
So, that part about Juedes is correct- vpw's system said God wasn't needed to receive- since the "believing" worked
equally well without him. That means the system is independent of God, that no God, or god, is needed in the system.
(Juedes explained that himself, but Oldies was too busy filibustering him to even CONSIDER whether or not it was
correct.) Thus, the system is, technically, "atheistic." It matches other "belief" systems that don't require a God-or a god-
to operate. As for working "like voodoo", I think that's an inaccurate representation of what Juedes said-
feel free to prove me wrong on that, but be very specific if you claim it.
Since Juedes was correct, shame on Oldiesman for continually LYING about it and refusing to admit that Juedes was right.
I don't think it's bad for Oldies to have been wrong. His dysfunctional response- HIDE THE ERROR, SHOOT THE MESSENGER,
and CLAIM TRUTH for KNOWN ERROR is just plain bad. I wouldn't bring it up, but he's trying to invent errors on Juedes'
behalf again. He seems to have convinced someone it's true just through repeating it.
That's sad.
Oldiesman SHOULD know better, but when it comes to someone correcting vpw's theology, he REFUSES to see it.
WD should be able to see the differences, too. However, he's too busy with his apologetics to see it- or possibly he
DOES see it and refuses to acknowledge it. I don't think that's healthy for him.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I forgot to mention a few other scriptures taught in the context of the law of believing:
Remember these scriptures from the Class?:
Rom 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:
Rom 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Rom 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
Being strong in faith giving glory to God, and being fully persuaded that what God has promised he was able also to perform, was a vital key in understanding and practicing "the law of believing" as taught in PFAL.
This speaks for itself, and reasonable and intelligent folks who practiced these truths can judge for themselves whether the system was atheistic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
White Dove - this reads as a question and not name-calling. I guess for me it falls in the "if the shoe fits" category. I think that had you asked a question of someone and they got as offended as you have over this question here, you'd be fuming. *I think* but I don't know you, just how you post.
Has anyone ever read the The Amplified Bible? It reads like a whole book of literals according to usuage. Here's an example:
Phil 3:13(Amplified Bible)
13. I do not consider, brethren, that I have captured and made it my own [yet]; but one thing I do [it is my one aspiration]: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,
14. I press on toward the goal to win the [supreme and heavenly] prize to which God in Christ Jesus is calling us upward.
15. So let those [of us] who are spiritually mature and full-grown have this mind and hold these convictions; and if in any respect you have a different attitude of mind, God will make that clear to you also.
Compare that to the KJV we all got so used to:
13. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14. I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
15. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.
The first copyright of the Amplified Bible was in 1954. It does make me wonder.... It would be interesting to compare some of twi's "literals according to usage" and compare them to the Amplified Bible's handling. (I don't have any to compare or I would do it myself.) It may go nowhere - but then again, who knows where that rabbit hole could lead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think the real issue that speaks for itself, is that can reasonable and intelligent folks who practiced these supposed truths can judge for themselves- did it WORK? You know. REAL, TANGIBLE bonifide, verifiable right down where one lives RESULTS? That was what was promised by the way..
No fluff, no pie in the sky when I die..
so you got the front parking spot at wally mart.. "wow.. I'm cookin today.."
what about the fifty other times you had to walk from the back lot?
I dunno. I think that kind of spirituality is rather shallow and immature.
I think it is a brand of spirituality which is most easily practiced when one is lucky enough to be young, healthy, employed, or independantly wealthy..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Create Your Very Own Commentary For Fun And Profit.
First you quote a scripture.
Then you expound upon what it "REALLY" means.
Perhaps you use some Greek words to give weight to your assertion.
Maybe you elaborate on some long forgotten "custom" or social mores of ancient times.
You might even translate it as a total package and explain that this is how you feel it should be translated in order to convey its essence in modern vernacular. (In other words, "adjust it for inflation.")
That's what is commonly called Bible commentary.
Get it? It's commenting on The Bible.
It's exactly what Wierwille did.
He was highly critical of others who did the same thing.
When others did it, he called it private interpretation and insisted it was unacceptable.
What's good for the goose is good for the geezer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I thought we were supposed to include little illustrations from Shakespeare and Chaucer..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It appears we may have run out of time for Shakespeare and Chaucer.
Perhaps some John Cleland will suffice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU7_ukdiqs8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
It may be a question, but it was not an honest one , If I had a dime for every time I have been refered to as such I be a rich man I've lost count how many times I have corrected that idea, it was not a mistake. While in the way on occasion I recall the use of the Amplified Bible in teachings. I own one and use it often.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Loved Koko the clown video. Reminds me of Wierwille teaching of Christian Family and Sex, and that's not milk in that cup, it's DRAMBRIUE. I thought the monkey was LCM
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
If it was an honest question, it required no answer from you.
If it wasn't an honest question, then you took the bait by answering it.
The truth is that you do seem to come out in defense of vp more often than not. Is that in and of itself a problem? I dunno.
As far as vp's honesty in researching goes... well it was more than apparent to me that he built pf al on Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible. (It was years and years later that I saw Kenyon's and Stiles's works.) I always questioned (even back then) how folks railed against commentaries but soaked up "literals according to usage" like sponges.
BTW, when I first was introduced to the Amplified Bible, I hated it. I still don't really care for it. It just seems like another mediated experience. It's like watching a National Geographic special on the Grand Canyon and thinking that now you've been there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Actually...it WAS an honest question.
Nope...Can't think of any other choices...I think you covered both possibilities...unless WhiteDove has another explanation?
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Here's the shoe... does it fit White Dove?
Definition of "Apologist"
*edited to fix spelling*
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Wrong question............
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
No it does not, the shoe you described seems to be a different model , you see mine that was offered had a Wierwille model added on it. Now it seems we were discussing what Walter said. Last time I looked they were not the same person. That would make being a Wierwille apologist difficult by reason of the fact that he was not the principle person in the discussion, in fact as I pointed out the supposed quote was not about Wierwille at all but about a researcher. That fails the test by definition of Wierwille apologist. I made no case for Wierwille.
Your right I did take the bait, My choice.... that does not change the honesty of the question. I generally respond to misconceptions about me when posted...again ,my choice.That may be your perception not mine I come out in defense of what is true .
Truth is truth no matter who may have said it. You wanna label me a apologist for truth........ Fine. Defending truth is not one in the same as defending Wierwille which was the charge. Nor do I believe that every time someone corrects a misstatement that qualifies them as a apologist. In this case I defended the truth of what was stated, who stated it was not the issue, nor was it important, what was ,is that it was restated correctly and truthfully. And as pointed out it had nothing to do with Wierwille at all. At best one could assume I was a Cummins apologist maybe . That would be the difference.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually, since it was about a supposed remark disparaging vpw, it applies.
Any vpw apologist would jump in right where you did.
(You're a grown adult-you can see this.)
Of course, EVERY apologist claims they are "an apologist for truth."
And, saying it "had NOTHING to do with Wierwille AT ALL" is not true.
Are we supposed to consider it an astonishing coincidence that your posts of apologetics
all just happen to arrive when vpw or his doctrines enter the room?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
My posts arrive when things are distorted into half truths or outright lies, the are not limited to Wierwille or Way doctrines. If someone put words in your mouth I would do the same. It has nothing to do with like or dislike of the person. Although admittedly it is an easier task when the one in question is likeable. Claiming the truth as you point out and providing the written truth are not one in the same ,I provided the factual record and it was wanting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
First, thanks White Dove for posting the quote from "The Living Word Speaks". I believe that having the actual quotes, rather than faulty memories of them, is better for all concerned. Our motives undoubtedly differ, but there you go.
But we disagree on whether Walter's quote is about Wierwille or not. "A researcher" is referenced in a book about Wierwille's contributions to biblical research in a discussion about "literal translations according to usage", a term that as far as I know was invented by Wierwille, and you think that he's not talking abgout Wierwille? Of course his neutral language can equally apply to other researchers, but in TWI, who was THE researcher?
John brings up a good point though on the supposed difference between "free" translations and "literal according to usage" translations...the same translations are called both things in Wierwille's books.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Okay, well in the interest of truth, (and just for chits and giggles, as well) I'd like to know what led up to this conversation about some unnamed, studious, "researcher."
In other words, I'd like to read the paragraph or two that led up to W^lter talking about what a literal according to usage is.
It may go nowhere. It may answer some questions on either side. I never read the book so I don't have a clue as to what I'm asking for here - just that it would set some bigger context.
Isn't it odd that this thread sat kinda quietly until that quote entered the room?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Edited to keep the conversation moving.
Edited by doojableLink 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.