In PFAL: Wierwille writes, "The first word in II Timothy 2:15 is ‘study.' The very first thing a person must do to rightly divide the Word is study. He is not told to study commentaries or secular writers; he must study The Word."
In truth: The word "study" in II Timothy 2:15 would more accurately be translated "endeavor." It does not mean "study" in the way Wierwille uses it. The NIV translates it "do your best." So does the Contemporary English Version. The New Living Translation renders it "work hard."
Discussion: Wierwille is deliberately using a mistranslated word to prove his point. The point itself is valid: studying God's Word is a good thing. But that is not the point of that particular word. The strange thing is, Wierwille knows this. His chapter on "Study: Be Diligent" in The Bible Tells Me So makes that clear. So why allow the mistake to remain? If the accuracy of the Bible is such a big deal, why rely on an inaccurate translation to make your point?
Here you go WS, Like when you gents STUDY the Femme Fatales and you ENDEAVOR to get them to notice you
So Raf asks the question why VPW relied on an inaccurate translation to make his point over and over? Shouldn't that be obvious? If you really have nothing new to teach, then you continually teach on the same ol same ol and it causes you to appear well learned and educated to those that have never heard it before and its even better when the audience is very young and naive, like most of us were when we were sucked into the Weirwillian vortex....and now I can see the
wicked witch riding her bicycle...
and there goes Aunty Em....
and some of those darned chickens....
and there are some of the collaterals
next to the outhouse
Why there's Ben, trying to get out of the outhouse....
Oh, there goes TWI HQ
looks like everything is blowing in the wind....
Ahhh.....there she is.....
Dorothy herself!
"Study to show yourself approved unto God" should have the emphasis on making (our walk) acceptable to God. He has predestined us to good works (Ephesians). We are to work out, figure out, how to do those good works. The study isn't poring over books because we are in mid-course for our BA or some other tests.
The study is learning to walk the walk, which is by understanding the heart of the scriptures and following the example set by trusted leaders. It includes exercising the sword of the spirit to rightly divide the word, ie, our walk, into what we are doing senses-wise and what we are doing from the heart.
Yet, we are told to meditate upon that very WORD OF GOD, which necessitates some STUDY of the Holy Book. It doesn't go in by osmosis. In order for the Holy Spirit to bring it to your remembrance, it has to have been ingested at some point or another.
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved.
Wow, that is totally different than study. You see, the Greek word spudoso does not mean study. It means to apply a diligent effort. You could say, “Make a diligent effort to present yourself approved unto God.” Why does the King James Version say the word study? It says that because in 1611 when only 10% of the population could read you studied by being a disciple. A silver smith in 1611 did not become a silver smith by reading books. They studied, that is to say that they apprenticed with a silver smith. He would have them first build the right kind of fire. They might spend a year learning how to build it right. Then, they learn to melt the silver to the right temperature. A period of study occurred that might have gone on for years. Today, sometimes we call that understudy. In 1611, it is very important that you understand that at that time study did not mean read. It meant to understudy and make a diligent effort when you understudy the person.
This is a snipit from an article by John S. So I guess there is more to it than just a head game.
...noticed an overlooked version of "study" in the overlooked 1 Thess 4:11
4:11
And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;
and found a notion of being "seated" that ive never heard of in TWI
nor in our postmodern mainstream western industrial strength christianity
quite a white rabbit to follow around the epistles
such as...
1Pe 3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
Ironic, that for all our studying we still were so far from the truth, left it up to others to do the "biblical research" that we prided ourselves in, which also resulted with so many in the knowledge puffeth up category, miles away from God and His Son Jesus Christ. .
Ironic, that for all our studying we still were so far from the truth, left it up to others to do the "biblical research" that we prided ourselves in, which also resulted with so many in the knowledge puffeth up category, miles away from God and His Son Jesus Christ. .
Great post jeast!
This is exactly what lead me into seminary to LEARN it for myself and then on to study Greek and Hebrew, so that NEVER AGAIN, would I have to rely on someone else's definitions of what they thought the original languages meant. Thus, never again to be hoodwinked in those matters. Amen!
A silver smith in 1611 did not become a silver smith by reading books.
Indeed! Thanks, jeast!
From Paul to Timothy, endeavoring to demonstrate himself in a way that God would approve is a living thing -- certainly not academic! Does neognosticism google? (The spell check underlines it.)
And, uh, how many manifestations of the Spirit are there?
Just to be sure credit is given to where credit is due.
The bulk of my original post was taken from an article by John S.
I am encouraged when I read a thread where the posts are lively but civil. Our understanding of what is meant by "scripture" is an important foundational building block otherwise we will all be refering to our own subjective datums.
That's not to rule out the witness of the Holy Spirit but they both need to jive before we can say with confidence, thus sayeth the Lord.
It would be great if every individual could independantly research all the texts of every language, know all the customs and figures of speech but then we run the risk of only seeing it from just our point of view.
I would prefer to collectively provide input from our individual studies and research and then personally confirm the results with "scripture" and the Holy Spirit.
This way we can take full advantage of each others strengths and move progressively forward instead of continually reinventing the wheel.
Now that we have all seen how the bible and scripture can be manipulated and what damage that it has done to our lives I think it makes us uniquely more qualified than we were before.
That seems a valid and obvious point ... but such things were commonly overlooked i think ...
I remember some corps week teaching I think ... about gematria or something. It was where the letters had numeric values, and you could add the numbers up to come up with totals that supposedly had significance. But they used the Greek, while twi had been teaching the originals were in Aramaic.
So I asked someone smart I guess, but it was basically, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". No point in having to answer to clear contradictions.
People are more comfortable ust accepting that they have the answers than having to face such facts. Like vp when he mocked the one guy "I have the answer" ... so that guy was vpw.
I suppose one could say "all scripture" just meant all scripture, whether it had been written yet or not. But how it was determined to include some "scripture" and not other "writings" is not clear. VP's answer was simple ... if it was wrong, he'd tell us.
To my knowledge, VP did not publically question the cannon as it was in the KJV. During my Corps training were we did not question it. VP used the terms "scripture," "God's Word," "The Word of God," and "The Bible" interchangeably in my experience with twi.
I think we have to be careful about saying: "I suppose one could say "all scripture" just meant all scripture, whether it had been written yet or not." At the time the writer of this verse wrote this verse, it seems to me that he referred to certain documents that the readers of the verse were familiar with, which actually existed. If it would refer to anything "not written yet" who is to say which ones those would be? What would be the criteria for determining which ones they were?
Also, remember, the deciders of the cannon were people with their own assumptions, opinions, politics, etc. Most Christians have accepted the ancient decisions of Iranaeus, bishop of Lyons, and Origen, (an Egyptian teacher from the 3rd century) seemingly without question. There are lots of books on this topic which are easy to read and readily available, such as Beyond Belief by Elaine Pagels, professor at Princeton and others like Bart Ehrman's who wrote The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. A good source containg many other documents left out of the OT and NT is The Other Bible, by Willis Barnstone.
Question for brideofjc's following comment:
There are many writiings that didn't make the grade as far as being of apostolic authorship etc., dates were wrong, such as letters claiming to have been written by an apostle, but they were penned after the apostle had been martyred. Many such letters or writings are called pseudepigrapha or "false writings"not that they are "false" in every sense of the word, but that the authorship that they are ascribed to is not accurate. The content could be very accurate. "
penworks: What is your criteria for determining "content" that is "accurate"?
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved.
Wow, that is totally different than study. You see, the Greek word spudoso does not mean study. It means to apply a diligent effort. You could say, “Make a diligent effort to present yourself approved unto God.” Why does the King James Version say the word study? It says that because in 1611 when only 10% of the population could read you studied by being a disciple. A silver smith in 1611 did not become a silver smith by reading books. They studied, that is to say that they apprenticed with a silver smith. He would have them first build the right kind of fire. They might spend a year learning how to build it right. Then, they learn to melt the silver to the right temperature. A period of study occurred that might have gone on for years. Today, sometimes we call that understudy. In 1611, it is very important that you understand that at that time study did not mean read. It meant to understudy and make a diligent effort when you understudy the person.
This is a snipit from an article by John S. So I guess there is more to it than just a head game.
Regarding this : "In 1611, it is very important that you understand that at that time study did not mean read. It meant to understudy and make a diligent effort when you understudy the person."
What John S. left out of this explanation is that this verse wasn't WRITTEN in 1611, it was TRANSLATED in 1611. He's giving you an interpretation of what the TRANSLATORS meant by "study." The translators were not the WRITERS of the verse. They had to pick which English word to use that they thought would carry the meaning of the Greek word in that verse. They were the pros at that time, and my hat is off to them for the monumental task they undertook and finished. But they, too, had their agendas, and we'll never know how those affected their work. Translating, inherently, involves interpretation, in my view. An interesting book on the history of the English Bible is Wide as the Waters, the Story of the English Bible and the Revolution It Inspired." Just some food for thought for those interested.
Sometimes I'm curious about what the original writer meant in this verse. Most likely he referred to the OT scrolls, as was mentioned earlier in this thread. But since we DO NOT HAVE any originals of any document included in the cannon, we have our best "guess" from looking at all the copies in existence. But that takes access to those texts. Since I'm not a textual scholar, I shy away from speculating on what the original writer meant (in Greek, which most scholars believe the N.T. was written in.)
I've gotten used to the idea that I have to accept that the author lived in a completely different kind of world than I live in today and held cultural assumptions I may not understand since he was an Oriental living about 18 centuries ago and I'm a 21st century American. (twi tried to cover that base by offering classes on Orientalisms, but to me that was a very biased class).
Well, this is a huge topic and perhaps I should just let it rest...I am only an amatuer asking a bunch questions that my life does not depend on...
Well, this is a huge topic and perhaps I should just let it rest...I am only an amatuer asking a bunch questions that my life does not depend on...
We hope not :)
I view ALL scripture as a serious attempt to carry on some ancient traditions and beliefs. There is, no doubt, much to learn from these men and women, but I don't give any of them credence as having been breathed by God, so this question is just academic to me. I don't let my amateur status stop from philosophizing.
Still it is interesting that vp never really delved into this aspect of what "scripture" was being referred to. For a research ministry, it would seem a rather obvious first question ... he talks about having no originals, but then mostly defaults to the KJV as being accurate in determining which writings to include.
I think once vp had his pfal product, he wasn't much interested in ideas or questions that would rock the boat. If he pointed out errors (or if, god forbid anyone else did) it weakened his product and made sales more difficult. Plus it was hard on his ego.
I wonder how often the way research team "buried" or ignored research that conflicted with fundamental vp dogma.
I think for most "searchers" who aren't carrying a whole boatload of bias, the Vicster's "ministry" can be pretty easily dismissed out of hand. There was just too much nonsense, self-serving, plagiarism, and huckstering going on for any real substance to be there (IMNSHO).
But once one gets past their cult experience and baggage, I guess you would need to seriously consider just what it is that MERITS any disciplined study, wouldn't you?
And, in that vein, why is it that The Bible should be regarded with any reverence to begin with? Is it intellectually honest to approach your search for the "Truth" with the a-priori assumption that The Bible is "The Word of God"? I sure wouldn't think so.
Why should The Bible be given such authority, right out of the box, when there's so many other works with claims of Divine authorship available?
Yeah, I know. I'm a miserable heathen to even suggest such a thing. It just seems to me that Theological Studies have a helluva lot more to do with tradition and superstition than with any real, disciplined, dispassionate study. Feelings and preconceived notions always seem to carry the day for the true believer. "Don't tell me that God wasn't showing me such and such..." seems to be the sort of refrain I hear whenever I question basic Christian beliefs. If that works for you, fine, I guess...
What John S. left out of this explanation is that this verse wasn't WRITTEN in 1611, it was TRANSLATED in 1611. He's giving you an interpretation of what the TRANSLATORS meant by "study." The translators were not the WRITERS of the verse. They had to pick which English word to use that they thought would carry the meaning of the Greek word in that verse.
To be fair to John, I think it's pretty much a given that most people know that the verse wasn't written in 1611.
(in Greek, which most scholars believe the N.T. was written in.)
Wasn't VP who pushed the Lamsa version of the NT, and didn't VP believe the NT was written in (Pedangta) Aramaic, devoting countless research hours to it? Obviously misguided...
This brings up one mention in the Wikipedia, but it would be closer = bibliophobia
listed under Thomas Frognall Dibdin.
HOWEVER, IT DOES GOOGLE
bibliophobiaBibliophobia, is a common phobia that most people don't even know that they have. Bibliophobia is commonly known as the fear of books (but that's not the ...
library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00415/bibliophobia.htm - 4k - Cached - Similar pages
BIBLIOPHOBIA: Treatment and HopeAcclaimed Bibliophobia treatment seen on NBC & ABC news. Our board-certified specialists help people with phobias like yours. We guarantee the results, ...
www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=340:1420 - 72k - Cached - Similar pages
bibliophobia: Definition and Much More from Answers.combibliophobia ( ′biblēə′fōbēə ) ( psychology ) An abnormal fear of books.
www.answers.com/topic/bibliophobia - 37k - Cached - Similar pages
Bibliophobia: A Better Excuse Than My Dog Ate My Homework! by Myla ...Feb 28, 2008 ... My daughter was sent home from school the other day with a letter from her teacher stating she had not been doing her homework and could I ...
searchwarp.com/swa304367.htm - 49k - Cached - Similar pages
Bibliophobia - definition of Bibliophobia by the Free Online ...Definition of Bibliophobia in the Online Dictionary. Meaning of Bibliophobia. What does Bibliophobia mean? Bibliophobia synonyms, Bibliophobia antonyms.
www.thefreedictionary.com/Bibliophobia - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
Definition: bibliophobia from Online Medical DictionaryThe Online Medical Dictionary is a searchable dictionary of definitions from medicine, science and technology.
cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?bibliophobia - 3k - Cached - Similar pages
Does Bibliophobia Bother You?Eliminate Bibliophobia Safely, Quickly and Effectively without Drugs. Scientifically Tested. Release Your Bibliophobia Fast and Easy.
www.phobia-fear-release.com/bibliophobia.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages
I REALLY LIKE THE LAST ONE!!!!!
HERE IS THE FIRST ONE, I LIKE THIS ONE TOO!!
Bibliophobia, is a common phobia that most people don't even know that they have. Bibliophobia is commonly known as the fear of books (but that's not the whole story!). Some of us think we have it when we try to do our homework. The symptoms of this phobia include breathlessness, dizziness, dry mouth, excessive sweating, nausea, feeling sick, heart palpitations, inability to speak of think clearly, a fear of dying, becoming mad or losing control, a sensation of detachment from reality of a full blown anxiety attack. The real meaning of Bibliophobia is a fear of something that has no real danger. Bibliophobia can cause disruptions at work, school, and in social relations. There is a psychologist who has found a way to cure Bibliophobia in one session, but it will cost you about $1,000.
I KNOW JUST WHAT WILL CURE IT TOO, BUT I NEED CASH UP FRONT! NO REFUNDS EITHER!
Also, remember, the deciders of the cannon were people with their own assumptions, opinions, politics, etc. Most Christians have accepted the ancient decisions of Iranaeus, bishop of Lyons, and Origen, (an Egyptian teacher from the 3rd century) seemingly without question. There are lots of books on this topic which are easy to read and readily available, such as Beyond Belief by Elaine Pagels, professor at Princeton and others like Bart Ehrman's who wrote The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. A good source containg many other documents left out of the OT and NT is The Other Bible, by Willis Barnstone.
Question for brideofjc's following comment:
There are many writiings that didn't make the grade as far as being of apostolic authorship etc., dates were wrong, such as letters claiming to have been written by an apostle, but they were penned after the apostle had been martyred. Many such letters or writings are called pseudepigrapha or "false writings"not that they are "false" in every sense of the word, but that the authorship that they are ascribed to is not accurate. The content could be very accurate. "
penworks: What is your criteria for determining "content" that is "accurate"?
Princeton is very liberal in their views so if you read any of their works, weigh it with caution. Bart Ehrman has left Christianity, I do believe and that about sums it up for me.
My criteria for accurate content would be this: does it line up with other noted and established texts. Is the HOLY SPIRIT warning me in any way that it isn't right. Have other scholars read it and what do they say about the content.
Wierwille agreed with Lamsa, who believed that the NT was originally written in Aramaic.
He threw around the term "Estrangelo Aramaic" which referred to the script that the language was written in, not a dialect.
Indeed, Estrangelo is the name of a script used to write the Syriac or "Aramaic" language. There are other scripts, too, like the Jacobite or Nestorian used in writing/printing the New Testament.
And, in that vein, why is it that The Bible should be regarded with any reverence to begin with? Is it intellectually honest to approach your search for the "Truth" with the a-priori assumption that The Bible is "The Word of God"? I sure wouldn't think so.
Why should The Bible be given such authority, right out of the box, when there's so many other works with claims of Divine authorship available?
George, it goes way, way back to Mt. Sinai. I do believe that if I had been present and spent 40 days in the PRESENCE OF THE LORD and got to watch HIS FINGER cutting out rock and giving HIS COMMANDMENTS, I'd bow and kiss the rock myself. When in the deep throes of reverence for HIS WORD, I do kiss the Bible pages in homage.
Yeah, I know. I'm a miserable heathen to even suggest such a thing. It just seems to me that Theological Studies have a helluva lot more to do with tradition and superstition than with any real, disciplined, dispassionate study. Feelings and preconceived notions always seem to carry the day for the true believer. "Don't tell me that God wasn't showing me such and such..." seems to be the sort of refrain I hear whenever I question basic Christian beliefs. If that works for you, fine, I guess...
Naw, George, Greek and Hebrew are cold and calculating.....and I've said it before out here:
Princeton is very liberal in their views so if you read any of their works, weigh it with caution. Bart Ehrman has left Christianity, I do believe and that about sums it up for me.
My criteria for accurate content would be this: does it line up with other noted and established texts. Is the HOLY SPIRIT warning me in any way that it isn't right. Have other scholars read it and what do they say about the content.
Well, I do think Elaine Pagels has done some excellent work, but I'm a "liberal" so that's okay with me... :)
And I view Ehrman as one of the few willing to stick his neck out on topics such as this and not hold back.
Well, I do think Elaine Pagels has done some excellent work, but I'm a "liberal" so that's okay with me... :)
And I view Ehrman as one of the few willing to stick his neck out on topics such as this and not hold back.
peace,
penworks
A L-I-B-E-R-A-L (gasp!) and you actually admitted it????
I just said weigh it with caution. Whether you are liberal or conservative, all works should be weighed with caution and if they line up with the written
WORD OF GOD. As far as Ehrman goes, I know his bio states that he was an evangelical in his teens and with the study of textual criticism actually talked
himself out of his own faith. I would then question the roots of his faith. They must not have gone very deep. Although on the other hand, one could get
too lost in books and especially THE BOOK and forget about the AUTHOR.
I think for most "searchers" who aren't carrying a whole boatload of bias, the Vicster's "ministry" can be pretty easily dismissed out of hand. There was just too much nonsense, self-serving, plagiarism, and huckstering going on for any real substance to be there (IMNSHO).
But once one gets past their cult experience and baggage, I guess you would need to seriously consider just what it is that MERITS any disciplined study, wouldn't you?
And, in that vein, why is it that The Bible should be regarded with any reverence to begin with? Is it intellectually honest to approach your search for the "Truth" with the a-priori assumption that The Bible is "The Word of God"? I sure wouldn't think so.
Why should The Bible be given such authority, right out of the box, when there's so many other works with claims of Divine authorship available?
Yeah, I know. I'm a miserable heathen to even suggest such a thing. It just seems to me that Theological Studies have a helluva lot more to do with tradition and superstition than with any real, disciplined, dispassionate study. Feelings and preconceived notions always seem to carry the day for the true believer. "Don't tell me that God wasn't showing me such and such..." seems to be the sort of refrain I hear whenever I question basic Christian beliefs. If that works for you, fine, I guess...
George, you asked: Is it intellectually honest to approach your search for the "Truth" with the a-priori assumption that The Bible is "The Word of God"? I sure wouldn't think so. Why should The Bible be given such authority, right out of the box, when there's so many other works with claims of Divine authorship available?
My comments: I think these are good and honest questions, and are ones I've asked for years, too. For me, the awareness of how this idea originated has helped. The Fundamentals, published in the 1920s, helped establish this a-priori assumption in this country, but looking back to John Wycliffe's time in England also sheds some light. Check out Wide as the Waters by Benson Bobrick. It is a great lesson in the history of how the English Bible came to be, the Catholic and Protestant views that challenged (many times drew blood) each other, etc. and brought us up to this time of labeling the Bible as The Word of God. Protestants threw out the authority of the Catholics who held church dogma (passed along for centuries) and scripture as two sources for directing conduct. Luther's protests against the Church came later and only made the idea stronger IMO.
Again, this is a huge topic which encompasses inerrancy, translations, versions, history, politics, etc.
And, indeed, other works like the Koran etc. claim divine authorship. A good source for gaining a scope of world religions and myths is Joseph Campbell's work. Now we're getting into a really huge topic. Since I'm no scholar, only a person asking pesky questions, I'll stop here.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
13
22
34
Popular Days
May 18
30
May 1
18
May 4
15
May 8
11
Top Posters In This Topic
sirguessalot 11 posts
Oakspear 13 posts
penworks 22 posts
brideofjc 34 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2008
30 posts
May 1 2008
18 posts
May 4 2008
15 posts
May 8 2008
11 posts
brideofjc
Here you go WS, Like when you gents STUDY the Femme Fatales and you ENDEAVOR to get them to notice you
So Raf asks the question why VPW relied on an inaccurate translation to make his point over and over? Shouldn't that be obvious? If you really have nothing new to teach, then you continually teach on the same ol same ol and it causes you to appear well learned and educated to those that have never heard it before and its even better when the audience is very young and naive, like most of us were when we were sucked into the Weirwillian vortex....and now I can see the
wicked witch riding her bicycle...
and there goes Aunty Em....
and some of those darned chickens....
and there are some of the collaterals
next to the outhouse
Why there's Ben, trying to get out of the outhouse....
Oh, there goes TWI HQ
looks like everything is blowing in the wind....
Ahhh.....there she is.....
Dorothy herself!
Yet, we are told to meditate upon that very WORD OF GOD, which necessitates some STUDY of the Holy Book. It doesn't go in by osmosis. In order for the Holy Spirit to bring it to your remembrance, it has to have been ingested at some point or another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
not 'biblioxeniophobia'
nothing googles
but that about sums it up for me
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jeast
2 Timothy 2:15a (NIV)
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved.
Wow, that is totally different than study. You see, the Greek word spudoso does not mean study. It means to apply a diligent effort. You could say, “Make a diligent effort to present yourself approved unto God.” Why does the King James Version say the word study? It says that because in 1611 when only 10% of the population could read you studied by being a disciple. A silver smith in 1611 did not become a silver smith by reading books. They studied, that is to say that they apprenticed with a silver smith. He would have them first build the right kind of fire. They might spend a year learning how to build it right. Then, they learn to melt the silver to the right temperature. A period of study occurred that might have gone on for years. Today, sometimes we call that understudy. In 1611, it is very important that you understand that at that time study did not mean read. It meant to understudy and make a diligent effort when you understudy the person.
This is a snipit from an article by John S. So I guess there is more to it than just a head game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
seems somewhat related to the thread and my post...
...did a search on the word "study"
...noticed an overlooked version of "study" in the overlooked 1 Thess 4:11
and found a notion of being "seated" that ive never heard of in TWI
nor in our postmodern mainstream western industrial strength christianity
quite a white rabbit to follow around the epistles
such as...
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
Ironic, that for all our studying we still were so far from the truth, left it up to others to do the "biblical research" that we prided ourselves in, which also resulted with so many in the knowledge puffeth up category, miles away from God and His Son Jesus Christ. .
Great post jeast!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jeast
Just as the Body of Christ has many members I think it is important to realize we all have our different roles as per our gifts/God given talents.
Some of you are great with researching, some with communicating etc and I truly respect that.
It could not be more evident than here at GSC.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
This is exactly what lead me into seminary to LEARN it for myself and then on to study Greek and Hebrew, so that NEVER AGAIN, would I have to rely on someone else's definitions of what they thought the original languages meant. Thus, never again to be hoodwinked in those matters. Amen!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Indeed! Thanks, jeast!
From Paul to Timothy, endeavoring to demonstrate himself in a way that God would approve is a living thing -- certainly not academic! Does neognosticism google? (The spell check underlines it.)
And, uh, how many manifestations of the Spirit are there?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jeast
Just to be sure credit is given to where credit is due.
The bulk of my original post was taken from an article by John S.
I am encouraged when I read a thread where the posts are lively but civil. Our understanding of what is meant by "scripture" is an important foundational building block otherwise we will all be refering to our own subjective datums.
That's not to rule out the witness of the Holy Spirit but they both need to jive before we can say with confidence, thus sayeth the Lord.
It would be great if every individual could independantly research all the texts of every language, know all the customs and figures of speech but then we run the risk of only seeing it from just our point of view.
I would prefer to collectively provide input from our individual studies and research and then personally confirm the results with "scripture" and the Holy Spirit.
This way we can take full advantage of each others strengths and move progressively forward instead of continually reinventing the wheel.
Now that we have all seen how the bible and scripture can be manipulated and what damage that it has done to our lives I think it makes us uniquely more qualified than we were before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
To my knowledge, VP did not publically question the cannon as it was in the KJV. During my Corps training were we did not question it. VP used the terms "scripture," "God's Word," "The Word of God," and "The Bible" interchangeably in my experience with twi.
I think we have to be careful about saying: "I suppose one could say "all scripture" just meant all scripture, whether it had been written yet or not." At the time the writer of this verse wrote this verse, it seems to me that he referred to certain documents that the readers of the verse were familiar with, which actually existed. If it would refer to anything "not written yet" who is to say which ones those would be? What would be the criteria for determining which ones they were?
Also, remember, the deciders of the cannon were people with their own assumptions, opinions, politics, etc. Most Christians have accepted the ancient decisions of Iranaeus, bishop of Lyons, and Origen, (an Egyptian teacher from the 3rd century) seemingly without question. There are lots of books on this topic which are easy to read and readily available, such as Beyond Belief by Elaine Pagels, professor at Princeton and others like Bart Ehrman's who wrote The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. A good source containg many other documents left out of the OT and NT is The Other Bible, by Willis Barnstone.
Question for brideofjc's following comment:
There are many writiings that didn't make the grade as far as being of apostolic authorship etc., dates were wrong, such as letters claiming to have been written by an apostle, but they were penned after the apostle had been martyred. Many such letters or writings are called pseudepigrapha or "false writings"not that they are "false" in every sense of the word, but that the authorship that they are ascribed to is not accurate. The content could be very accurate. "
penworks: What is your criteria for determining "content" that is "accurate"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Regarding this : "In 1611, it is very important that you understand that at that time study did not mean read. It meant to understudy and make a diligent effort when you understudy the person."
What John S. left out of this explanation is that this verse wasn't WRITTEN in 1611, it was TRANSLATED in 1611. He's giving you an interpretation of what the TRANSLATORS meant by "study." The translators were not the WRITERS of the verse. They had to pick which English word to use that they thought would carry the meaning of the Greek word in that verse. They were the pros at that time, and my hat is off to them for the monumental task they undertook and finished. But they, too, had their agendas, and we'll never know how those affected their work. Translating, inherently, involves interpretation, in my view. An interesting book on the history of the English Bible is Wide as the Waters, the Story of the English Bible and the Revolution It Inspired." Just some food for thought for those interested.
Sometimes I'm curious about what the original writer meant in this verse. Most likely he referred to the OT scrolls, as was mentioned earlier in this thread. But since we DO NOT HAVE any originals of any document included in the cannon, we have our best "guess" from looking at all the copies in existence. But that takes access to those texts. Since I'm not a textual scholar, I shy away from speculating on what the original writer meant (in Greek, which most scholars believe the N.T. was written in.)
I've gotten used to the idea that I have to accept that the author lived in a completely different kind of world than I live in today and held cultural assumptions I may not understand since he was an Oriental living about 18 centuries ago and I'm a 21st century American. (twi tried to cover that base by offering classes on Orientalisms, but to me that was a very biased class).
Well, this is a huge topic and perhaps I should just let it rest...I am only an amatuer asking a bunch questions that my life does not depend on...
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
We hope not :)
I view ALL scripture as a serious attempt to carry on some ancient traditions and beliefs. There is, no doubt, much to learn from these men and women, but I don't give any of them credence as having been breathed by God, so this question is just academic to me. I don't let my amateur status stop from philosophizing.
Still it is interesting that vp never really delved into this aspect of what "scripture" was being referred to. For a research ministry, it would seem a rather obvious first question ... he talks about having no originals, but then mostly defaults to the KJV as being accurate in determining which writings to include.
I think once vp had his pfal product, he wasn't much interested in ideas or questions that would rock the boat. If he pointed out errors (or if, god forbid anyone else did) it weakened his product and made sales more difficult. Plus it was hard on his ego.
I wonder how often the way research team "buried" or ignored research that conflicted with fundamental vp dogma.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I think for most "searchers" who aren't carrying a whole boatload of bias, the Vicster's "ministry" can be pretty easily dismissed out of hand. There was just too much nonsense, self-serving, plagiarism, and huckstering going on for any real substance to be there (IMNSHO).
But once one gets past their cult experience and baggage, I guess you would need to seriously consider just what it is that MERITS any disciplined study, wouldn't you?
And, in that vein, why is it that The Bible should be regarded with any reverence to begin with? Is it intellectually honest to approach your search for the "Truth" with the a-priori assumption that The Bible is "The Word of God"? I sure wouldn't think so.
Why should The Bible be given such authority, right out of the box, when there's so many other works with claims of Divine authorship available?
Yeah, I know. I'm a miserable heathen to even suggest such a thing. It just seems to me that Theological Studies have a helluva lot more to do with tradition and superstition than with any real, disciplined, dispassionate study. Feelings and preconceived notions always seem to carry the day for the true believer. "Don't tell me that God wasn't showing me such and such..." seems to be the sort of refrain I hear whenever I question basic Christian beliefs. If that works for you, fine, I guess...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
Wasn't VP who pushed the Lamsa version of the NT, and didn't VP believe the NT was written in (Pedangta) Aramaic, devoting countless research hours to it? Obviously misguided...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Wierwille agreed with Lamsa, who believed that the NT was originally written in Aramaic.
He threw around the term "Estrangelo Aramaic" which referred to the script that the language was written in, not a dialect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
This brings up one mention in the Wikipedia, but it would be closer = bibliophobia
listed under Thomas Frognall Dibdin.
HOWEVER, IT DOES GOOGLE
bibliophobiaBibliophobia, is a common phobia that most people don't even know that they have. Bibliophobia is commonly known as the fear of books (but that's not the ...
library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00415/bibliophobia.htm - 4k - Cached - Similar pages
BIBLIOPHOBIA: Treatment and HopeAcclaimed Bibliophobia treatment seen on NBC & ABC news. Our board-certified specialists help people with phobias like yours. We guarantee the results, ...
www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=340:1420 - 72k - Cached - Similar pages
bibliophobia: Definition and Much More from Answers.combibliophobia ( ′biblēə′fōbēə ) ( psychology ) An abnormal fear of books.
www.answers.com/topic/bibliophobia - 37k - Cached - Similar pages
Bibliophobia: A Better Excuse Than My Dog Ate My Homework! by Myla ...Feb 28, 2008 ... My daughter was sent home from school the other day with a letter from her teacher stating she had not been doing her homework and could I ...
searchwarp.com/swa304367.htm - 49k - Cached - Similar pages
Bibliophobia - definition of Bibliophobia by the Free Online ...Definition of Bibliophobia in the Online Dictionary. Meaning of Bibliophobia. What does Bibliophobia mean? Bibliophobia synonyms, Bibliophobia antonyms.
www.thefreedictionary.com/Bibliophobia - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
Definition: bibliophobia from Online Medical DictionaryThe Online Medical Dictionary is a searchable dictionary of definitions from medicine, science and technology.
cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?bibliophobia - 3k - Cached - Similar pages
Does Bibliophobia Bother You?Eliminate Bibliophobia Safely, Quickly and Effectively without Drugs. Scientifically Tested. Release Your Bibliophobia Fast and Easy.
www.phobia-fear-release.com/bibliophobia.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages
I REALLY LIKE THE LAST ONE!!!!!
HERE IS THE FIRST ONE, I LIKE THIS ONE TOO!!
Bibliophobia, is a common phobia that most people don't even know that they have. Bibliophobia is commonly known as the fear of books (but that's not the whole story!). Some of us think we have it when we try to do our homework. The symptoms of this phobia include breathlessness, dizziness, dry mouth, excessive sweating, nausea, feeling sick, heart palpitations, inability to speak of think clearly, a fear of dying, becoming mad or losing control, a sensation of detachment from reality of a full blown anxiety attack. The real meaning of Bibliophobia is a fear of something that has no real danger. Bibliophobia can cause disruptions at work, school, and in social relations. There is a psychologist who has found a way to cure Bibliophobia in one session, but it will cost you about $1,000.
I KNOW JUST WHAT WILL CURE IT TOO, BUT I NEED CASH UP FRONT! NO REFUNDS EITHER!
http://www.phobia-fear-release.com/bibliophobia.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Princeton is very liberal in their views so if you read any of their works, weigh it with caution. Bart Ehrman has left Christianity, I do believe and that about sums it up for me.
My criteria for accurate content would be this: does it line up with other noted and established texts. Is the HOLY SPIRIT warning me in any way that it isn't right. Have other scholars read it and what do they say about the content.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Indeed, Estrangelo is the name of a script used to write the Syriac or "Aramaic" language. There are other scripts, too, like the Jacobite or Nestorian used in writing/printing the New Testament.
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Naw, George, Greek and Hebrew are cold and calculating.....and I've said it before out here:
AND I LIKE IT LIKE THAT!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Well, I do think Elaine Pagels has done some excellent work, but I'm a "liberal" so that's okay with me... :)
And I view Ehrman as one of the few willing to stick his neck out on topics such as this and not hold back.
peace,
penworks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
A L-I-B-E-R-A-L (gasp!) and you actually admitted it????
I just said weigh it with caution. Whether you are liberal or conservative, all works should be weighed with caution and if they line up with the written
WORD OF GOD. As far as Ehrman goes, I know his bio states that he was an evangelical in his teens and with the study of textual criticism actually talked
himself out of his own faith. I would then question the roots of his faith. They must not have gone very deep. Although on the other hand, one could get
too lost in books and especially THE BOOK and forget about the AUTHOR.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
George, you asked: Is it intellectually honest to approach your search for the "Truth" with the a-priori assumption that The Bible is "The Word of God"? I sure wouldn't think so. Why should The Bible be given such authority, right out of the box, when there's so many other works with claims of Divine authorship available?
My comments: I think these are good and honest questions, and are ones I've asked for years, too. For me, the awareness of how this idea originated has helped. The Fundamentals, published in the 1920s, helped establish this a-priori assumption in this country, but looking back to John Wycliffe's time in England also sheds some light. Check out Wide as the Waters by Benson Bobrick. It is a great lesson in the history of how the English Bible came to be, the Catholic and Protestant views that challenged (many times drew blood) each other, etc. and brought us up to this time of labeling the Bible as The Word of God. Protestants threw out the authority of the Catholics who held church dogma (passed along for centuries) and scripture as two sources for directing conduct. Luther's protests against the Church came later and only made the idea stronger IMO.
Again, this is a huge topic which encompasses inerrancy, translations, versions, history, politics, etc.
And, indeed, other works like the Koran etc. claim divine authorship. A good source for gaining a scope of world religions and myths is Joseph Campbell's work. Now we're getting into a really huge topic. Since I'm no scholar, only a person asking pesky questions, I'll stop here.
Gotta go do some gardening now...
peace,
penworks
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
wing
I could use some help in my garden (losing in a battle with voles)
wing
oops, not on topic :)
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.