I'm toying with the idea of starting a thread on "inspiration and attitude" (inclusive of the inerrancy thing) over in the Doctrinal section. See ya there.
I will admit here in this post (and sorry if it offends) that I really do believe there is something remarkable about the Bible in the way it “coheres”.
There's nothing offensive in that belief...it only becomes offensive when it is used as a jumping off point for calling those who believe differently idiots!
Now, in your humble opinions – have I done something so wrong in coming to my “conclusion”?
Nope. While I disagree with your conclusion, it's certainly a valid one.
Is that a "major problem" with Penwork's definition (as you said earlier in your post) or just a "major problem"?
RE
Both.
Actually, inductive reasoning depends on the truthfulness of a base step. Then one shows for any other arbitrary step, one can prove the next one from the last one..
I agree to a degree. A faulty major premise yields a faulty conclusion no matter how sound the minor premises or the evidence. The thing with major premises, they're also known as "givens."
just a thought.. the alternative makes one to force "inerrancy" in the bible, where it does not reasonably exist..
look at the lengths gone to in JCOP..
I don't think its a problem unless one makes it one. I think we were trained in the ministry to regard any other options than the bible being a perfect error free document (supposedly in the *original*) to be an attack from the devil spirit world or something..
Thanks for the welcome.
All I'm saying is that you can't dismiss research into the Bible that is based on the premise that it is "inerrant" -- as research -- any more than you can dismiss research into it that is based on the premise that it is "errant." Both are unprovable premises.
For instance, biblical critics of both stripes may practice research via one or the other or both, of what are called what are Higher Criticism and Lower Criticism of the biblical text -- which are both basically inductive methodologies. But the conclusions they come to, whichever inductive method they practice, nevertheless differ widely based on the critics' "givens" about the Bible with which they begin that research.
A quote from the Wikipedia article on Higher Criticism might help at this point (emphases added):
The questions of higher criticism are widely recognized by Orthodox Jews and many traditional Christians as legitimate questions, yet they often find the answers given by the higher critics unsatisfactory or even heretical. In particular, religious conservatives object to the rationalistic and naturalistic presuppositions of a large number of practitioners of higher criticism that lead to conclusions that conservative religionists find unacceptable.
Many conservative Bible scholars practice their own form of higher criticism within their supernaturalist and confessional frameworks. However, most traditional Christian exegetes examine the Bible chiefly through the Bible itself, believing that clear places in scripture give the best help in explaining the less clear places. Hence their exegetics, to one degree or another, depend upon lower criticism.
Other biblical scholars object that the evidence uncovered by higher criticism itself undermines the use of supernaturalist and confessional frameworks within the methodology. Meanwhile, religiously liberal Christians and religiously liberal Jews typically maintain that belief in God has nothing to do with the authorship of, for instance, the Pentateuch or the Pauline Epistles.
See in the first two phrases I highlighted, how people's premises affect the results of their research?
Meanwhile that third phrase I highlighted almost sounds like "the difficult verse must be understood in light of the clear verse," doesn't it? Because the methodology that V.P.W. used in his research was of the lower criticism kind. E.W. Bullinger too. And although it might ruffle feathers the wrong way here, both of them were pretty darn good at it in my book.
But of course, it is perfectly legitimate to contend with the results of their biblical research or anyone else's, making use of "higher" or "lower" criticism -- or any other type of inductive analysis for that matter -- to demonstrate the flaws in it. There are plenty of conservative Bible scholars out there, for instance, who believe in the inerrancy of the Scripture yet disagree strongly, not only with V.P. and E.W., but amongst themselves.
It is also perfectly legitimate to reject an entire line of research, if you believe the premise upon which is conducted is false. After all, it's a free country.
What I am saying is simple: It appears to me that what Penworks is claiming in her essay, is that V.P.W.'s research isn't research because she disagrees with his premise of inerrancy. My point is that her claim on that basis does not hold water.
A point that, I'm sure, A LOT of conservative critics of the Bible would would agree with me on, since her logic throws their research -- as research -- out the window along with V.P.'s.
Then you don't accept the well-ordering principle?
Sorry, I typed the above in answer to you while you were replying. I don't know what the "well-ordering principle" is.
The inerrancy premise is what most "Bible believing" Christians start with (VP, Bullinger and millions of others, BTW). Throwing out the baby (inerrancy) with the bathwater (in this case VP's womanizing and BS in many places) doesn't wash (pun intended).
I know its math.. but you were talking logic and proof or the lack of merit thereof..
Anyway.. I don't think that Penworks assertion was not that the bible is NOT inerrant. Just that if one wants to impose an inductive proof or analysis, one has to play by the rules. Is it inerrant, or not? "well, it is, because it says it is.."
hardly is a base step for the "proof".
Neither is "it can't be".
If faith or belief is so important.. isn't it counter-productive to force logic where it does not really apply?
The inerrancy premise is what most "Bible believing" Christians start with (VP, Bullinger and millions of others, BTW). Throwing out the baby (inerrancy) with the bathwater (in this case VP's womanizing and BS in many places) doesn't wash (pun intended).
RE
Yeah, you don't wanna see the FLAME WAR I got into with a guy, on a financial blog where I spend most of my online time. A guy who I would characterize as "an uber-libertarian crypto-anarchist."
...that's right, you guessed it, an Ayn Rand NUT (talk about a cult)...
The discussion pivoted around the same kind of logical error in play here, called a "Category Error." Something that I keep in mind whenever I'm exercising lower criticism-types of analyses on texts that I encounter -- and not just biblical texts.
I know its math.. but you were talking logic and proof or the lack of merit thereof..
Anyway.. I don't think that Penworks assertion was not that the bible is NOT inerrant. Just that if one wants to impose an inductive proof or analysis, one has to play by the rules. Is it inerrant, or not? "well, it is, because it says it is.."
hardly is a base step for the "proof".
Neither is "it can't be".
If faith or belief is so important.. isn't it counter-productive to force logic where it does not really apply?
Like I pointed out in my first post on this thread, even science is based on an unprovable premise -- like you're saying, on "faith" or "belief." Namely, that scientific laws are valid across the entire observable universe. All scientists therefore assume, based upon this unprovable premise, that the results they obtain in controlled studies in the laboratory would be the same on Mars or on the other end of the galaxy. But that assumption will remain forever unprovable, unless they are able to repeat their experiments on Mars and points beyond.
Clearly, without some basic premise upon which to base inductive methodologies, research of any kind would be impossible. Interestingly, when it comes to scientific laws as currently defined, observational astronomy has made two discoveries that present severe challenges to three of the most basic sets of laws known to science. Observations of Dark Matter have presented a challenge to Newtonian Mechanics, and observations of Dark Energy have presented a challenge to both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon that most directly demonstrates that our theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible.
Which is geek-speak for, "Holy Cr*p!!! What we're lookin' at through the Hubble is blowin' our cookies about the BASIC LAWS OF SCIENCE!"
Sorry, Workman, it all sounds like a bunch of verbal tap dancing to me. A scientific experiment that has been validated in, let's say, Kansas, has to produce the same results on Mars?? Where did you learn this approach to validation? It's really not as complex or intellectual as you try to make it sound. The "scriptures", as we know them, are chock full of errors and contradictions, not only because we no longer understand the nuances of the original languages and cultures but, also, because human tinkering has modified the contents time and time again. Wierwille didn't "research" anything. He simply twisted and squeezed and altered the Bible until he was able to make it conform to what he thought it should say. And, what he thought it should say was whatever best suited his own self-serving purposes. And, yet, people still harbor fond memories of how lambano sounds like laballo which sounds like ballo which sounds like ball which is an object to be tossed and, therefore, we are to toss it out into the senses world like a ball is tossed into the field of play.
Sorry, Workman, it all sounds like a bunch of verbal tap dancing to me. A scientific experiment that has been validated in, let's say, Kansas, has to produce the same results on Mars?? Where did you learn this approach to validation? It's really not as complex or intellectual as you try to make it sound. The "scriptures", as we know them, are chock full of errors and contradictions, not only because we no longer understand the nuances of the original languages and cultures but, also, because human tinkering has modified the contents time and time again. Wierwille didn't "research" anything. He simply twisted and squeezed and altered the Bible until he was able to make it conform to what he thought it should say. And, what he thought it should say was whatever best suited his own self-serving purposes. And, yet, people still harbor fond memories of how lambano sounds like laballo which sounds like ballo which sounds like ball which is an object to be tossed and, therefore, we are to toss it out into the senses world like a ball is tossed into the field of play.
I am my own Grandpaw.
Complex? Intellectual? Moi? I think you may need to reread.
Actually it's a simple as 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510...
Complex? Intellectual? Moi? I think you may need to reread.
Actually it's a simple as 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510...
Yeah. You can cut the "pie" into an "infinite" number of pieces if you want.
That doesn't change what The Way tried to pass off as "research".
It wasn't research, it was a confirmation, as well as a conformation, of Wierwille's preconceived conclusions.
Remember, we're not talking about research in general. We're talking about TWI "research" and how how people have a fondness for remembering it as it never was.
Just a few more words about VPW and inerrancy. The examples he used to "prove inerrancy" are many and can be found in his publications. One way is in his approach to the gospels. For example, in an attempt to "show" that gospel contradictions are not really contradictions, he harmonized different accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection. Refer to the PFAL class and many threads here at GSC like:
To "prove" inerrancy, he tried to splice the gospels together, ignoring their different views, as if he were editing scenes for a film.
In my view, the "film" he produced is actually a fifth gospel which not only does not reflect any of the original gospels writers' accounts as they were written, but makes VPW's account appear as if it is the "real" gospel. In my view, by doing that, VPW placed a false halo around the belief in "inerrancy."
By creating a "fifth" gospel, VPW reinterpreted each writer's "take" on events. In the process, he avoided having to deal with uncomfortable questions about why there are four different gospels to begin with and how we got them. I do not think that VPW's method respects the gospel texts (written about 35 to 65 years after Jesus died) as we have them today; it only makes VPW a 20st century Bible thumper who tries to sound as if he knows what the "real" gospel should be.
BTW Workman: I checked your GSC profile and saw you mentioned your web site http://www.biblicalr...rchjournal.org/ . Since it is clear you are a proponent of VPW's research and methods, I imagine my line of thinking won't matter much to you since it comes from a different tradition of valuing Biblical documents. So, I offer this post to those interested who happen to still be reading this thread.
Yeah. You can cut the "pie" into an "infinite" number of pieces if you want.
That doesn't change what The Way tried to pass off as "research".
It wasn't research, it was a confirmation, as well as a conformation, of Wierwille's preconceived conclusions.
Remember, we're not talking about research in general. We're talking about TWI "research" and how how people have a fondness for remembering it as it never was.
Hey Way,
It is always interesting to me that while VP ended up as pretty much a sh_thead spiritually speaking, he was following an interesting path theologically. Sure, he plagiarized and he hustled a lot of people, he was a chameleon in many ways (as to the type of work he was supposed to have done... but it was another's all gussied up)and he wanted his 15 minutes of fame; all in the sh_thead catagory, IMHO. But his recognition of a form of inerrancy, his change to dispensationalism from Reformed Theology, his putting together of some pretty good things in a very simple form cannot be brushed off as no research at all. There was good work that came out of that very bad group. I still use it today with the caveat; the big caveat!
But his recognition of a form of inerrancy, his change to dispensationalism from Reformed Theology, his putting together of some pretty good things in a very simple form cannot be brushed off as no research at all. There was good work that came out of that very bad group. I still use it today with the caveat; the big caveat!
I agree, Bob. In a "strange way" I am thankful to have been with TWI, for at least that is where I was first introduced to many things about the Bible. Surely I could have found those things elsewhere if I had continued my search for some group, but it was nice to have certain keys and principles in a package.
Although I am disgusted at the plagiarism and poor application (at times) of the very "research principles" they had taught, I (as you) admit there was some good work done - especially during the "early years". For me, that was in the mid 70's.
I do still use much of what I had gleaned from them, but with "caution", also as you had indicated. Certain things just make sense, like the italics in KJV and basic grammar skills like reading for the context instead of isolating things. I could go on and on with more examples of that which was good, but I believe I have made my point.
To say The Way had found nothing "original" or did "no research at all" is (IMHO) being narrow-minded. And I believe they did stumble onto a few things here and there, despite their misuse of proper investigative techniques.
Perhaps this may be explained by quoting something my dad used to say: "Even a blind squirrel will find an acorn every once in a while!"
I agree, Bob. In a "strange way" I am thankful to have been with TWI, for at least that is where I was first introduced to many things about the Bible. Surely I could have found those things elsewhere if I had continued my search for some group, but it was nice to have certain keys and principles in a package.
One of the biggest current "selling points" of the Way International now is the "package" that VPW put together. Basically along the lines of the logic that his expertise and guidance from God led him to amalgamating the greatest teaching of the Bible known since the first century.
One of the main problems I have with this is the ethics premise behind it. The "end justifies the means" approach. IMO you can't unethically plagiarize from current peers, vaguely refer to their work, blend everything together, and come up with an ethical final result. The same brain, habits, background, morals that a man uses to research scriptures are the same he uses to live his life. The same stealing of people, research, using of people, acting like a little Napolean is present throughout the "package" that was communicated. That's why leaders after VPW have been unable to change that. It's part of who they are and what they learned.
While I can be thankful that the Way led me towards reading the Bible more, applying it more, and looking into languages deeper for building my understanding, outside of that, the "package" is a house of cards. It's illusion.
I frequently hear people say they are thankful they learned some good "stuff" in The Way. Like what, specifically? Reading things in context? Weren't we supposed to have learned that already in jr. high school English class? Even so, The Way may have told you to read things in context but then they set a lasting example of how to cherry pick scriptures to make their point.
So then what, specifically, are all these good things that people learned in The Way?
I frequently hear people say they are thankful they learned some good "stuff" in The Way. Like what, specifically? Reading things in context? Weren't we supposed to have learned that already in jr. high school English class? Even so, The Way may have told you to read things in context but then they set a lasting example of how to cherry pick scriptures to make their point.
So then what, specifically, are all these good things that people learned in The Way?
How to wash, dry, press, fold and store your invisible clothes.
Wierwille did stumble on a few acorns, but his research was bogus. He preached exegesis, reading the meaning out fromwhat is written, but he practiced and taught eisegesis, reading foreign meanings into what is written, sometimes in the very same lesson, as with "to whom addressed".
Wierwille parroted Darby, Bullinger and Schofield, misapplying the meaning "a period of time" to oikonomia or "stewardship", obscuring the distinctions between what Paul calls "this present evil age" and the age to come.
Genesis 2:7 says the Lord God formed MAN (not his body) of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (air in motion, man began breathing), and man BECAME a living soul. Man is a two part being composed of a dust component and a breath component (air in motion, literally; figuratively, life as evidenced by motion). A whole man can be viewed as a body. A whole man can also be viewed as a soul. And by the time of Paul, a whole man could be viewed as a spirit. When the breath or spirit (air in motion) leaves a man, that man becomes a dead soul.
This stuff isn't rocket science!
But the rat-poison in the package was when Wierwille taught that we are not to fear God. The fear of God is true humility, to recognize that God is God, and I am not. I need to change what I think to line up with what He says, not I need to change what He wrote to line up with what I think. The opposite of the fear of God is arrogance.
The NIV version of Psalm 36:1-4 reads,
"1 An oracle is within my heart concerning the sinfulness of the wicked:
There is no fear of God before his eyes.
"2 For in his own eyes he flatters himself
Too much to detect or hate his sin.
"3 The words of his mouth are wicked and deceitful;
He has ceased to be wise and to do good.
"4 Even on his bed he plots evil; he commits himself to a sinful course
And does not reject what is wrong."
Self-flattery. That was the rat poison that got to Wierwille, and the rat poison he put in our kool-aid. That was the rat poison in PFAL, and the rat poison that has screwed up every one of the off-shoots that try to perpetuate "the package" first put together by Wierwille.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
43
39
63
36
Popular Days
Feb 8
30
Nov 3
21
Nov 4
20
Feb 12
18
Top Posters In This Topic
geisha779 43 posts
waysider 39 posts
penworks 63 posts
spectrum49 36 posts
Popular Days
Feb 8 2010
30 posts
Nov 3 2009
21 posts
Nov 4 2009
20 posts
Feb 12 2010
18 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
Hold everything. Some people can believe that they are not sure they believe in God. That is another topic that belongs in a different thread, IMO. I appreciate these lessons in mathmatics and lo
Sunesis
With all due respect Spectrum, who cares when this thread will end? Most people here have enjoyed reading the posts and having their say. Sure, threads meander here, there, everywhere. Its the Body
penworks
I've been thinking about these sorts of things a long time, myself. One thing I found is that there are other ways to value the Bible besides thinkig it is has to be either "God's Word" (thereby it h
roberterasmus
Hey, Mel,
I'm toying with the idea of starting a thread on "inspiration and attitude" (inclusive of the inerrancy thing) over in the Doctrinal section. See ya there.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Workman
Both.
I agree to a degree.
A faulty major premise yields a faulty conclusion no matter how sound the minor premises or the evidence. The thing with major premises, they're also known as "givens."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Then you don't accept the well-ordering principle?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Workman
Thanks for the welcome.
All I'm saying is that you can't dismiss research into the Bible that is based on the premise that it is "inerrant" -- as research -- any more than you can dismiss research into it that is based on the premise that it is "errant." Both are unprovable premises.
For instance, biblical critics of both stripes may practice research via one or the other or both, of what are called what are Higher Criticism and Lower Criticism of the biblical text -- which are both basically inductive methodologies. But the conclusions they come to, whichever inductive method they practice, nevertheless differ widely based on the critics' "givens" about the Bible with which they begin that research.
A quote from the Wikipedia article on Higher Criticism might help at this point (emphases added):
See in the first two phrases I highlighted, how people's premises affect the results of their research?
Meanwhile that third phrase I highlighted almost sounds like "the difficult verse must be understood in light of the clear verse," doesn't it? Because the methodology that V.P.W. used in his research was of the lower criticism kind. E.W. Bullinger too. And although it might ruffle feathers the wrong way here, both of them were pretty darn good at it in my book.
But of course, it is perfectly legitimate to contend with the results of their biblical research or anyone else's, making use of "higher" or "lower" criticism -- or any other type of inductive analysis for that matter -- to demonstrate the flaws in it. There are plenty of conservative Bible scholars out there, for instance, who believe in the inerrancy of the Scripture yet disagree strongly, not only with V.P. and E.W., but amongst themselves.
It is also perfectly legitimate to reject an entire line of research, if you believe the premise upon which is conducted is false. After all, it's a free country.
What I am saying is simple: It appears to me that what Penworks is claiming in her essay, is that V.P.W.'s research isn't research because she disagrees with his premise of inerrancy. My point is that her claim on that basis does not hold water.
A point that, I'm sure, A LOT of conservative critics of the Bible would would agree with me on, since her logic throws their research -- as research -- out the window along with V.P.'s.
Sorry, I typed the above in answer to you while you were replying. I don't know what the "well-ordering principle" is.
Edited by WorkmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Nicely put Workman,
The inerrancy premise is what most "Bible believing" Christians start with (VP, Bullinger and millions of others, BTW). Throwing out the baby (inerrancy) with the bathwater (in this case VP's womanizing and BS in many places) doesn't wash (pun intended).
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
It is basically the foundation for inductive proof or argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-ordering_principle
I know its math.. but you were talking logic and proof or the lack of merit thereof..
Anyway.. I don't think that Penworks assertion was not that the bible is NOT inerrant. Just that if one wants to impose an inductive proof or analysis, one has to play by the rules. Is it inerrant, or not? "well, it is, because it says it is.."
hardly is a base step for the "proof".
Neither is "it can't be".
If faith or belief is so important.. isn't it counter-productive to force logic where it does not really apply?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Workman
Yeah, you don't wanna see the FLAME WAR I got into with a guy, on a financial blog where I spend most of my online time. A guy who I would characterize as "an uber-libertarian crypto-anarchist."
...that's right, you guessed it, an Ayn Rand NUT (talk about a cult)...
The discussion pivoted around the same kind of logical error in play here, called a "Category Error." Something that I keep in mind whenever I'm exercising lower criticism-types of analyses on texts that I encounter -- and not just biblical texts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Workman
Like I pointed out in my first post on this thread, even science is based on an unprovable premise -- like you're saying, on "faith" or "belief." Namely, that scientific laws are valid across the entire observable universe. All scientists therefore assume, based upon this unprovable premise, that the results they obtain in controlled studies in the laboratory would be the same on Mars or on the other end of the galaxy. But that assumption will remain forever unprovable, unless they are able to repeat their experiments on Mars and points beyond.
Clearly, without some basic premise upon which to base inductive methodologies, research of any kind would be impossible. Interestingly, when it comes to scientific laws as currently defined, observational astronomy has made two discoveries that present severe challenges to three of the most basic sets of laws known to science. Observations of Dark Matter have presented a challenge to Newtonian Mechanics, and observations of Dark Energy have presented a challenge to both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Indeed, the Dark Energy Task Force has written in a report on this issue:
Which is geek-speak for, "Holy Cr*p!!! What we're lookin' at through the Hubble is blowin' our cookies about the BASIC LAWS OF SCIENCE!"
Edited by WorkmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Sorry, Workman, it all sounds like a bunch of verbal tap dancing to me. A scientific experiment that has been validated in, let's say, Kansas, has to produce the same results on Mars?? Where did you learn this approach to validation? It's really not as complex or intellectual as you try to make it sound. The "scriptures", as we know them, are chock full of errors and contradictions, not only because we no longer understand the nuances of the original languages and cultures but, also, because human tinkering has modified the contents time and time again. Wierwille didn't "research" anything. He simply twisted and squeezed and altered the Bible until he was able to make it conform to what he thought it should say. And, what he thought it should say was whatever best suited his own self-serving purposes. And, yet, people still harbor fond memories of how lambano sounds like laballo which sounds like ballo which sounds like ball which is an object to be tossed and, therefore, we are to toss it out into the senses world like a ball is tossed into the field of play.
I am my own Grandpaw.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Congratulations! Have you come up with a name for the baby yet?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Workman
Complex? Intellectual? Moi? I think you may need to reread.
Actually it's a simple as 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yeah. You can cut the "pie" into an "infinite" number of pieces if you want.
That doesn't change what The Way tried to pass off as "research".
It wasn't research, it was a confirmation, as well as a conformation, of Wierwille's preconceived conclusions.
Remember, we're not talking about research in general. We're talking about TWI "research" and how how people have a fondness for remembering it as it never was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Hi Greasespotters:
Just a few more words about VPW and inerrancy. The examples he used to "prove inerrancy" are many and can be found in his publications. One way is in his approach to the gospels. For example, in an attempt to "show" that gospel contradictions are not really contradictions, he harmonized different accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection. Refer to the PFAL class and many threads here at GSC like:
VP and Bullinger harmonizing gospels
To "prove" inerrancy, he tried to splice the gospels together, ignoring their different views, as if he were editing scenes for a film.
In my view, the "film" he produced is actually a fifth gospel which not only does not reflect any of the original gospels writers' accounts as they were written, but makes VPW's account appear as if it is the "real" gospel. In my view, by doing that, VPW placed a false halo around the belief in "inerrancy."
By creating a "fifth" gospel, VPW reinterpreted each writer's "take" on events. In the process, he avoided having to deal with uncomfortable questions about why there are four different gospels to begin with and how we got them. I do not think that VPW's method respects the gospel texts (written about 35 to 65 years after Jesus died) as we have them today; it only makes VPW a 20st century Bible thumper who tries to sound as if he knows what the "real" gospel should be.
BTW Workman: I checked your GSC profile and saw you mentioned your web site http://www.biblicalr...rchjournal.org/ . Since it is clear you are a proponent of VPW's research and methods, I imagine my line of thinking won't matter much to you since it comes from a different tradition of valuing Biblical documents. So, I offer this post to those interested who happen to still be reading this thread.
Cheers!
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Hey Way,
It is always interesting to me that while VP ended up as pretty much a sh_thead spiritually speaking, he was following an interesting path theologically. Sure, he plagiarized and he hustled a lot of people, he was a chameleon in many ways (as to the type of work he was supposed to have done... but it was another's all gussied up)and he wanted his 15 minutes of fame; all in the sh_thead catagory, IMHO. But his recognition of a form of inerrancy, his change to dispensationalism from Reformed Theology, his putting together of some pretty good things in a very simple form cannot be brushed off as no research at all. There was good work that came out of that very bad group. I still use it today with the caveat; the big caveat!
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
I agree, Bob. In a "strange way" I am thankful to have been with TWI, for at least that is where I was first introduced to many things about the Bible. Surely I could have found those things elsewhere if I had continued my search for some group, but it was nice to have certain keys and principles in a package.
Although I am disgusted at the plagiarism and poor application (at times) of the very "research principles" they had taught, I (as you) admit there was some good work done - especially during the "early years". For me, that was in the mid 70's.
I do still use much of what I had gleaned from them, but with "caution", also as you had indicated. Certain things just make sense, like the italics in KJV and basic grammar skills like reading for the context instead of isolating things. I could go on and on with more examples of that which was good, but I believe I have made my point.
To say The Way had found nothing "original" or did "no research at all" is (IMHO) being narrow-minded. And I believe they did stumble onto a few things here and there, despite their misuse of proper investigative techniques.
Perhaps this may be explained by quoting something my dad used to say: "Even a blind squirrel will find an acorn every once in a while!"
SPEC
:)
Edited by spectrum49Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
To come off as less complex and intellectual, you might want to quote PI out to a little less precision than 50. Just sayin'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
One of the biggest current "selling points" of the Way International now is the "package" that VPW put together. Basically along the lines of the logic that his expertise and guidance from God led him to amalgamating the greatest teaching of the Bible known since the first century.
One of the main problems I have with this is the ethics premise behind it. The "end justifies the means" approach. IMO you can't unethically plagiarize from current peers, vaguely refer to their work, blend everything together, and come up with an ethical final result. The same brain, habits, background, morals that a man uses to research scriptures are the same he uses to live his life. The same stealing of people, research, using of people, acting like a little Napolean is present throughout the "package" that was communicated. That's why leaders after VPW have been unable to change that. It's part of who they are and what they learned.
While I can be thankful that the Way led me towards reading the Bible more, applying it more, and looking into languages deeper for building my understanding, outside of that, the "package" is a house of cards. It's illusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I frequently hear people say they are thankful they learned some good "stuff" in The Way. Like what, specifically? Reading things in context? Weren't we supposed to have learned that already in jr. high school English class? Even so, The Way may have told you to read things in context but then they set a lasting example of how to cherry pick scriptures to make their point.
So then what, specifically, are all these good things that people learned in The Way?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
How to wash, dry, press, fold and store your invisible clothes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
oops...gonna try this again!
SPEC
:)
Edited by spectrum49Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
wow, what the heck did you do to my browser?
when does anyone need that many digits?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Chockful:
Or - if one prefers to come off as more complex and highly intellectual, he might even want to quote PI out to 1000 places! Just sayin'...
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406
286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359
408128481117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933
446128475648233786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607
260249141273724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360
011330530548820466521384146951941511609433057270365759591953092186117381
932611793105118548074462379962749567351885752724891227938183011949129833
673362440656643086021394946395224737190702179860943702770539217176293176
752384674818467669405132000568127145263560827785771342757789609173637178
721468440901224953430146549585371050792279689258923542019956112129021960
864034418159813629774771309960518707211349999998372978049951059731732816
096318595024459455346908302642522308253344685035261931188171010003137838
752886587533208381420617177669147303598253490428755468731159562863882353
7875937519577818577805321712268066130019278766111959092164201989
SPEC
:)
PS: Sorry, Bolshevic. (I did fix it, but you read the original post too quickly.)
Edited by spectrum49Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Wierwille did stumble on a few acorns, but his research was bogus. He preached exegesis, reading the meaning out fromwhat is written, but he practiced and taught eisegesis, reading foreign meanings into what is written, sometimes in the very same lesson, as with "to whom addressed".
Wierwille parroted Darby, Bullinger and Schofield, misapplying the meaning "a period of time" to oikonomia or "stewardship", obscuring the distinctions between what Paul calls "this present evil age" and the age to come.
Genesis 2:7 says the Lord God formed MAN (not his body) of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (air in motion, man began breathing), and man BECAME a living soul. Man is a two part being composed of a dust component and a breath component (air in motion, literally; figuratively, life as evidenced by motion). A whole man can be viewed as a body. A whole man can also be viewed as a soul. And by the time of Paul, a whole man could be viewed as a spirit. When the breath or spirit (air in motion) leaves a man, that man becomes a dead soul.
This stuff isn't rocket science!
But the rat-poison in the package was when Wierwille taught that we are not to fear God. The fear of God is true humility, to recognize that God is God, and I am not. I need to change what I think to line up with what He says, not I need to change what He wrote to line up with what I think. The opposite of the fear of God is arrogance.
The NIV version of Psalm 36:1-4 reads,
"1 An oracle is within my heart concerning the sinfulness of the wicked:
There is no fear of God before his eyes.
"2 For in his own eyes he flatters himself
Too much to detect or hate his sin.
"3 The words of his mouth are wicked and deceitful;
He has ceased to be wise and to do good.
"4 Even on his bed he plots evil; he commits himself to a sinful course
And does not reject what is wrong."
Self-flattery. That was the rat poison that got to Wierwille, and the rat poison he put in our kool-aid. That was the rat poison in PFAL, and the rat poison that has screwed up every one of the off-shoots that try to perpetuate "the package" first put together by Wierwille.
Love,
Steve
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.