Mathematical Precision

[Tzaia]

I was reading a chapter out of Bruce McLaren's new book, "A New Kind of Christianity" when this phrase stuck out at me: "...interpreting texts with mathematical intelligence apart from social, emotional, and ethical intelligence is unintelligent, antisocial, and unethical." In my opinion, there was a definite amorality to VPW's take on scripture and at the time, I appreciated the lack of conviction on certain issues. Now that I've gotten a few years under my belt, it has become clear how self-serving the amorality was and how being that way opened the door to abuse. While we were very bible-centric, we weren't particularly Christ-centric.

[OldSkool]

I was reading a chapter out of Bruce McLaren's new book, "A New Kind of Christianity" when this phrase stuck out at me: "...interpreting texts with mathematical intelligence apart from social, emotional, and ethical intelligence is unintelligent, antisocial, and unethical."

That's interesting, to say the least. I had always considered that phrase to be indicative of the great care TWI used in handling the scriptures. They have great care alright, it's just misplaced on things like making sure certain words are capitalized, or not calling Jesus anything except Jesus Christ, etc. Yet, unintelligent, antisocial, and unethical describes that organizations modus-operandi to a T.

Edited February 9, 2010 by OldSkool

[penworks]

"...interpreting texts with mathematical intelligence apart from social, emotional, and ethical intelligence is unintelligent, antisocial, and unethical."

Help me out here...I don't know what "interpreting the texts with mathematical intelligence" is much less how to do it. Language doesn't seem to work like mathematics does, but maybe I just don't know enough to get it. Or maybe that phrase refers to reasoning and thinking and propositions that underlie what words try to convey...fill me in more, though, because I am interested. I remember VP used to use that phrase mathematical exactness and scientific precison but when writing English or translating other languages, things are not always so clear cut...are they?

Edited February 9, 2010 by penworks

[Tzaia]

Try this link. He does a fine job of putting it together.

Added: People with Logical intelligence are abstract thinkers and are attracted to logic and reasoning. They are good at investigation and scientific processes. They learn best by logic.

The premise that the bible is mathematically precise is just that - a premise. Are we reading "records" or stories? Records makes it sound all legal and binding, where stories puts the idea that it's not so cut and dried.

Anyway, I really like Bruce McLaren.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Tzaia

[Oakspear]

...VP used to use that phrase mathematical exactness and scientific precison but when writing English or translating other languages, things are not always so clear cut...are they?

I don't believe that things are so clear cut. Think about how often we mistake another's meaning, at home, at work, in politics. Even here at GSC, and we're mostly from the same country, same culture, same cult background, a lot of us are in the same age group, yet we still manage to misunderstand each other while using a common native language! What about when translating texts from a dead language that wasn't even the native language of the people who are being written about? In addition, some languages, like Greek, are more compatible with "exactness" in my opinion, while others, like the Semitic languages, are filled with metaphors and other figurative usage. Language at best is a fuzzy, inexact way of conveying thoughts.

That all being said, what's important, IMHO, is the big picture presented in the bible, not the trivia and minutia that we concerned ourselves with in TWI. Yes, sometimes it makes a difference if the word was translated wrongly or codex ABC has such and such a word in a different tense, or mood, or voice...but more often than not it just doesn't make that much of a difference.

[Twinky]

Hell's bells, VPW didn't understand English, never mind anything else.

You'd think if someone is so keen on what the Bible says, that person would be as precise as possible with their own use of their mother tongue.

He: didn't understand English grammar; didn't use words correctly (assigned incorrect meanings to words); contradicted himself in definitions. As well as that, he didn't take into account wider Bible history/archaeology or the different cultural aspects that came into play.

Sure the Bible fits with mathematical precision just like 2+3=6 if you can assign your own meaning to "2" and "3" - and to "6" while you're about it. Unless of course that little + sign is tipped on its side and really means "x" which you found out about by reading some long-lost piece of paper that nobody else has ever heard of.

[Broken Arrow]

Thanks Tzaia. I heard about the book you're referring to. I even picked it up and thumbed through it a little. It looked like it would be interesting. I'll have to check it out.

[waysider]

I think the only "mathematical exactness" Wierwille was ever truly concerned about involved a different kind of book------his bank ledger.

[chockfull]

I agree this is quite a sketchy approach. I marvel how it swayed me in the past. On one hand they are saying "the one great work of the Spirit is to direct the heart", and on the other "mathematical exactness and scientific precision".

Looking back, it seems they crafted the sales claim to appeal to both the emotion and logic - classic homiletic approach. Of course it makes absolutetly no sense when you examine it closer.

[soul searcher]

My ex-Way friend likes to trot this out as "evidence" of the bible's "mathematical precision." And, while it seems that there is little, if anything that is patently false in Bullinger's work, I still think this book (along with his "six denials" and "four crucified" theories) is very interesting and creative hogwash.

http://philologos.org/__eb-nis/

I'm wondering now Bullinger had access to any hallucinogenics like LSD.

[waysider]

Number in Scripture was heavily promoted as extra reading in The Way.

I found it to be a "wonder cure" for insomnia.

[johnj]

VPW and TWI didn't really want mathematical precision in interpreting Scripture, because their own desires to make the Bible say what they wanted trumped Bible accuracy.

Instead, they wanted people to think that VPW alone had the accuracy, so that everyone would abandon any other teachers and churches and give all their money, devotion and obedience to VPW and TWI. This is the primary, though unstated, goal of PFAL and WAP. Very self serving.

[JeffSjo]

Just another catch phrase repeated over and over again so we'd believe it IMO.

But now it seems evident that the reality of what TWI teaching as pertaining to concerning biblical, scientific precision and mathematical accuracy was like telling us that 2 + 2 = cat.

Edited February 11, 2010 by JeffSjo

[roberterasmus]

To all,

It’s interesting to me where Brian (not Bruce, BTW, to be mathmatically precise…sorry Taz…) comes from (theologically) and what his background is. He has been associated with what is called the “emergent church” movement (if it can be classified that way…don’t ya hate it when people try to pigeon-hole your system?) which is a compliation of people who “mostly agree on is their disillusionment with the organized and institutional church” (wik). Personally, I’m all for that. Further, I’m for actively living my Christianity in the real world (read: compassion, love, mercy, justice, giving, etc.).

But I’m also for the mathmatical precision and scientific accuracy of the Scriptures. I do not see this stuff as mutualy exclusive. Really, if you look at it, this is how Jesus lived. He was kind when it was needed, he was “in your face” at other times (usually it was with the hierarch of the “church”, BTW) and yet he was a very “jot and tittle” kinda guy. I think the reaction of most is that somehow there is always wool being pulled over the eyes when someone says this MSS says one thing and this MSS says it better, but the proof is in the pudding. Go find out and then believe or argue. If you don’t want to that’s OK too.

Some of this MSS stuff is just too overwhelming, but on the otherhand it is not necessarily someone trying to start another cult. This kind of textual criticism stuff happens every day in institutes of higher learning (theological) and it’s just not that bad or hurtful. I actually like it. If it makes (or made, in the case of TWI) someone less Christ centered, change the way you approach the so called “man of God” in your church and make sure you’ve checked his resources. IMHO, the Bible is clear enough on the issues that are important for salvation and a few other things…

Maybe in areas such as the Trinity or the Secret of God there have been some, shall I say, “interesting” ways that the monks monkied with the text, but Biblically we can read that Jesus was born of a woman. Not hard to figure out he was a man and not God. Logic has its place and should never be counted out of the equation when approaching homeletics or (especially) hermeneutics.

Re

[geisha779]

To all,

It's interesting to me where Brian (not Bruce, BTW, to be mathmatically precise…sorry Taz…) comes from (theologically) and what his background is. He has been associated with what is called the "emergent church" movement (if it can be classified that way…don't ya hate it when people try to pigeon-hole your system?) which is a compliation of people who "mostly agree on is their disillusionment with the organized and institutional church" (wik). Personally, I'm all for that. Further, I'm for actively living my Christianity in the real world (read: compassion, love, mercy, justice, giving, etc.).

But I'm also for the mathmatical precision and scientific accuracy of the Scriptures. I do not see this stuff as mutualy exclusive. Really, if you look at it, this is how Jesus lived. He was kind when it was needed, he was "in your face" at other times (usually it was with the hierarch of the "church", BTW) and yet he was a very "jot and tittle" kinda guy. I think the reaction of most is that somehow there is always wool being pulled over the eyes when someone says this MSS says one thing and this MSS says it better, but the proof is in the pudding. Go find out and then believe or argue. If you don't want to that's OK too.

Some of this MSS stuff is just too overwhelming, but on the otherhand it is not necessarily someone trying to start another cult. This kind of textual criticism stuff happens every day in institutes of higher learning (theological) and it's just not that bad or hurtful. I actually like it. If it makes (or made, in the case of TWI) someone less Christ centered, change the way you approach the so called "man of God" in your church and make sure you've checked his resources. IMHO, the Bible is clear enough on the issues that are important for salvation and a few other things…

Maybe in areas such as the Trinity or the Secret of God there have been some, shall I say, "interesting" ways that the monks monkied with the text, but Biblically we can read that Jesus was born of a woman. Not hard to figure out he was a man and not God. Logic has its place and should never be counted out of the equation when approaching homeletics or (especially) hermeneutics.

Re

Although I disagree with some of what you said . . . . the over all sentiment really appealed to me and I meant to(green) plus++++ you. . . . . so sorry. . . . my bad! Hope someone will fix my error.

[WordWolf]

I agree this is quite a sketchy approach. I marvel how it swayed me in the past. On one hand they are saying "the one great work of the Spirit is to direct the heart", and on the other "mathematical exactness and scientific precision".

Looking back, it seems they crafted the sales claim to appeal to both the emotion and logic - classic homiletic approach. Of course it makes absolutetly no sense when you examine it closer.

Right- they claimed two mutually exclusive positions at the same time,

so they could invoke whichever was most expedient for them to claim at any moment.

[WordWolf]

VPW and TWI didn't really want mathematical precision in interpreting Scripture, because their own desires to make the Bible say what they wanted trumped Bible accuracy.

Instead, they wanted people to think that VPW alone had the accuracy, so that everyone would abandon any other teachers and churches and give all their money, devotion and obedience to VPW and TWI. This is the primary, though unstated, goal of PFAL and WAP. Very self serving.

The claim OF accuracy drew in some people. Bullinger's approach was used to appeal to the

intellectual, partly divorced from mentioning it WAS Bullinger's approach, and claims it

was primarily vpw's approach. Naturally, HE didn't understand it as well as he claimed,

which is how he ended up trying to quote Bullinger and making mistakes as he went along.

Example: Peter denied Jesus three times.

Bullinger claimed Peter denied Jesus six times.

In the taped pfal class, vpw (without mentioning Bullinger) claimed Peter denied Jesus "THREE TIMES THREE"

times, or NINE times. vpw never actually covered 9 denials- all documentation matched EWB's 6 denials.

For a man who supposedly knew the material well enough to never need a syllabus, even the very

first time he taught "his" (Leonard's stolen) class, he sure made plenty of avoidable mistakes

YEARS LATER in the tapes. He confused "anabolepto" for "eidon", he confused Felix and Festus-

and then proceeded to quote AGRIPPA instead. "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian."

(And I quoted that from memory just now, complete with the names. It's not the easiest thing

in the world, but if he really was the so-called 'master' of the material, he would never have

made easily-correctible mistakes like that. the way international was-and is- based on nothing

more than lies and deceptions, and the plagiarized work of others, larded with the personal

errors of vpw who convinced himself that God was ok with ORGIES.

[hiway29]

not that it matters to me-but I don't recall '3 times 3' in that class. I remember 'thrice twice', which confused me anyway.

Of course it's been a long time...thankfully.

[Oakspear]

not that it matters to me-but I don't recall '3 times 3' in that class. I remember 'thrice twice', which confused me anyway.

Of course it's been a long time...thankfully.

"Before the cock crows twice, thou shalt deny me thrice" was changed, with patented VP comma removal to "Before the cock crows, twice thou shalt deny me thrice" - that's how I remember it... That changed the meaning from Peter denying Jesus three times before the second cock crow to the denials before the cock crow being counted as "twice thrice", or 2x3 (which I doubt is even grammatically correct in Greek!)