You can go all the way back to session #1 and see that, by taking John 10:10 out of context, Wierwille was able to severely distort the meaning of the message in a manner that excised Christ.
Newlife, you said on a different thread that you were finding it hard to develop a relationship with God. I think by seeing what you are now seeing, you're well on your way.
Another context you should be aware of is the OT setting. Sometimes a line is quoted in the NT that refers to quite a lengthy section in the OT. Just as a few words or a one-liner for us brings to mind a whole teaching, so it did in OT times. Significant parts of Romans are like that.- see for example Rom 8 to 11, which includes our "foundational" text of Rom 10:9,10. If you don't look at the parts of the OT that these chapters quote from, you miss a lot of depth of meaning.
Paul was a highly educated Pharisee. Knowing where he "came from" and all the wealth of knowledge he encapsulates in a phrase, helps us better understand some of what he writes to the new Christians, many of whom were themselves of Jewish background. Some of what he writes is new, of course, but there is still that legalistic OT background that he has thought through in great depth to "see the heart (grace) behind it."
"Significant parts of Romans are like that.- see for example Rom 8 to 11, which includes our "foundational" text of Rom 10:9,10. If you don't look at the parts of the OT that these chapters quote from, you miss a lot of depth of meaning"
hmmmmm...........could you elaborate alittle....maybe give an example from those chapters you pointed on in Romans? Thanks.
There are plenty of verses that TWI takes out of context when it suits them.
The first one I think of is II Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Private interpretation is a questionable translation of idios (one's own or his own) and epilusis (letting loose).
They teach that private interpretation is "one's own letting loose". Fair enough.
But then they go on to say that what that means is that no one today should privately interpret, turn their minds loose on the scripture.
They then go on to say that anyone who says "I think this verse means..." is privately interpreting the scripture.
If II Peter 1:20 sat by itself that may be one of the ways it could be taken.
But the context is clearly not how scripture is interpreted but how the prophets of old received the revelation of the scripture.
In another part of their classes they use the very next verse to show how we got the scripture:
II Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
What I found interesting is that I don't recall them ever reading those two verses together as they should be.
They always separated them. I wonder why?
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
TWI used this against anyone who looked at a verse and said "I think this means such and such" or more importantly, "I don't think this verse says what you are saying it says."
I don't think there's anything wrong with someone saying "I think this verse means...". It helps me consider their point of view, consider their reasoning. If their argument is sound, then I give it more weight. If it's not sound, at least it got me to think.
TWI doesn't want you to think. They want you to accept their interpretation of the scriptures.
If there was such a thing as privately interpreting the scripture, they are guilty of it.
Recommended Posts
waysider
You can go all the way back to session #1 and see that, by taking John 10:10 out of context, Wierwille was able to severely distort the meaning of the message in a manner that excised Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Newlife, you said on a different thread that you were finding it hard to develop a relationship with God. I think by seeing what you are now seeing, you're well on your way.
Another context you should be aware of is the OT setting. Sometimes a line is quoted in the NT that refers to quite a lengthy section in the OT. Just as a few words or a one-liner for us brings to mind a whole teaching, so it did in OT times. Significant parts of Romans are like that.- see for example Rom 8 to 11, which includes our "foundational" text of Rom 10:9,10. If you don't look at the parts of the OT that these chapters quote from, you miss a lot of depth of meaning.
Paul was a highly educated Pharisee. Knowing where he "came from" and all the wealth of knowledge he encapsulates in a phrase, helps us better understand some of what he writes to the new Christians, many of whom were themselves of Jewish background. Some of what he writes is new, of course, but there is still that legalistic OT background that he has thought through in great depth to "see the heart (grace) behind it."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
newlife
Twinky.......
"Significant parts of Romans are like that.- see for example Rom 8 to 11, which includes our "foundational" text of Rom 10:9,10. If you don't look at the parts of the OT that these chapters quote from, you miss a lot of depth of meaning"
hmmmmm...........could you elaborate alittle....maybe give an example from those chapters you pointed on in Romans? Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PatAnswer
There are plenty of verses that TWI takes out of context when it suits them.
The first one I think of is II Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Private interpretation is a questionable translation of idios (one's own or his own) and epilusis (letting loose).
They teach that private interpretation is "one's own letting loose". Fair enough.
But then they go on to say that what that means is that no one today should privately interpret, turn their minds loose on the scripture.
They then go on to say that anyone who says "I think this verse means..." is privately interpreting the scripture.
If II Peter 1:20 sat by itself that may be one of the ways it could be taken.
But the context is clearly not how scripture is interpreted but how the prophets of old received the revelation of the scripture.
In another part of their classes they use the very next verse to show how we got the scripture:
II Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
What I found interesting is that I don't recall them ever reading those two verses together as they should be.
They always separated them. I wonder why?
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
TWI used this against anyone who looked at a verse and said "I think this means such and such" or more importantly, "I don't think this verse says what you are saying it says."
I don't think there's anything wrong with someone saying "I think this verse means...". It helps me consider their point of view, consider their reasoning. If their argument is sound, then I give it more weight. If it's not sound, at least it got me to think.
TWI doesn't want you to think. They want you to accept their interpretation of the scriptures.
If there was such a thing as privately interpreting the scripture, they are guilty of it.
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.