It looks to me like the Way Ministry got their teachings on adminstration from EW Bullinger's book "How to Enjoy the Bible". This book may have been misread. I have only read parts of this book as instead for bible study I use my bible software and look up information myself. However, as an analysis of Oikonomia from this book at least Bullinger as read on page 79, figured out that oikonomia "was used of the management or administration of a household". Did Victor Wierwille and other people involved see that???
It looks to me like the Way Ministry got their teachings on adminstration from EW Bullinger's book "How to Enjoy the Bible". This book may have been misread. I have only read parts of this book as instead for bible study I use my bible software and look up information myself. However, as an analysis of Oikonomia from this book at least Bullinger as read on page 79, figured out that oikonomia "was used of the management or administration of a household". Did Victor Wierwille and other people involved see that???
The book was recommended reading, and sold in the bookstore. Hasn't it been discussed already that most of what he taught on this came predominately from Bullinger's work on it?
It looks to me like the Way Ministry got their teachings on adminstration from EW Bullinger's book "How to Enjoy the Bible". This book may have been misread. I have only read parts of this book as instead for bible study I use my bible software and look up information myself. However, as an analysis of Oikonomia from this book at least Bullinger as read on page 79, figured out that oikonomia "was used of the management or administration of a household". Did Victor Wierwille and other people involved see that???
FFIW: Wierwille wasn't really interested in accuracy as long as he could make his doctrine fit the Scriptures. Remember the "hand in the glove"?
I am thankfull to be reading the posts on this thread: how do I say "good" and thanks.
Please do not bring in vpw's junk into the discussion, he's dead to me, yeh, he's dead but I mean the spew he spread is dead.
I am outside your research expertise but enjoy the fruits of your work: thank you.
I read religeously.
Since you are a follower of schoenheit and lynn, vic is still quite alive in you. Plagiarizing the plagiarizer and others is their trademark. Where do you think they each get 80% of all their doctrine and classes from? Funny that you should need to come here to the GSC to gain your "research expertise". You're a self-described follower of schoenheit and lynn, the 2 greatest living biblical "researchers" on the planet in their own minds. Why not go to them with all your foolish questions about the rev? Don't trust them? Or, just trolling the GSC for them?"
My modhat is going to be half on/half off for this one.
DWBH, please avoid making it personal. This thread is about the REV, not MRAP's loyalties. Whether he has discussed the questions he's raising with Lynn, Schoenheit, Graeser, Geer, Cummins, Finnegan, Wilkinson, Caballero, Townsend or Dorothea Kipp is between him and them. His questions are fair game for this forum.
He is entitled to ask them. He is not entitled to a response; that's up to other posters who are interested in the material. If no one is interested
MRAP: It is not reasonable to try to separate the REV from the people who produced it, and (modhat off, opinion follows) it is not possible to divorce their presuppositions from Wierwille. So to ask people to not talk about Wierwille's "junk" is reasonable if we're talking about his personal failings, but it is not reasonable if you're talking about his doctrine and/or how he developed it. Those doctrines are entirely relevant to the REV because they informed the people who produced it.
I have not posted on this thread for awhile and have no intention to post on this thread anymore even though it's in the doctrinal forum. There's nothing to learn or hear that has not already been extrapolated from other venues. Even though I started this sub forum in honest intent it's quite obvious it belongs elsewhere so the REV and its' developers can be bashed without reservation: I would suggest under the TWI forum since it now seems that off shoots like STF are consolidated with twi though I find that repulsive.
I noted that some changes have been made in relocating sub-forums, probably a good idea. The REV should be taken outa the doctrinal forum since it is a magnet for bashing even though it should not be discerned against any differently than any other Biblical version.
I would like to see the doctrinal forum be just that: doctrinal discourse without dragging in dislikes for those who posed certain Biblical ideas.
I know, it's not my call how GSC constructs their forums, I only put in my 2 cents with the intent to keeping the doctrinal forum free of personal attacks and sticking to doctrinal debate. I rarely pose questions on the doctrinal forum but I most certainly appreciate reading the subjects on the forum - their are some thoughtfull and well researched folks who post on doctrinal.
Now that was a long write, I need to take a breath.
Entirely possible that you're right and I'm wrong on this one, MRAP. I'll sleep on it. If I don't change my mind, I will at least ask for a second opinion.
I agree mrap can ask anything he wants. He can believe whatever he chooses to and say it. Frankly, I am annoyed at the same questions over and over again despite a good volume of info spoon fed him by a number of posters here in answer to those questions. I believe he is patronizing down here. I mean when a member admits to purposely being "a little turd" on every forum except Doctrinal, and then continues along as if no one ever answered him, well, that just gets rude and mean. His questions have been answered excellently by educated folks here several times now. Apparently he is either not reading or hearing what is said.
Then he repeatedly insults the GSC by saying the site is worthless, how many new members or twit refugees has the Spot had in the last year?....
Whom have we really helped if anyone? All we do is bash everyone he loves and follows according to him. There's no objectivity here, nothing here he can't get at any other site, he doesn't like this forum or that sub-forum, and he demands things be done his way and then whines when they aren't.
I will do my best to comply with the rules and play nice. Feel free to delete any posts of mine you deem inappropriate on any forum here. I have respect for this site and for the people who have kept it going and continue to do so. I love this place. I will do my best to play nice. TY.
I think MRAP is correct. We are mixing things up to an extent that makes the conversation difficult to follow, and there is an expectation that we will confine ourselves to the topics at hand.
The doctrinal section is intended to divorce personalities from what the Bible actually teaches, and to another extent whether one interpretation of the Bible should be preferred over another. The issue of whether the Bible is credible also falls under doctrinal, but we created "Questioning Faith" to house such discussions to keep them from interrupting discussions that are purely about what the Bible teaches.
But in practical terms, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to separate doctrines from the people presenting them. Thus, a conversation about the REV, even in doctrinal, will naturally include the people who produced the REV. We can be sticklers and demand that we evaluate the REV on its own merits. That would be in keeping with the purpose of the Doctrinal section. If we are going to discuss the motives of the people who produced it, we should only do so in order to shed light on the specific doctrinal issue being raised. Saying Schoenheit and Lynn were influenced by Wierwille is insufficient for that purpose. Saying that they were influenced by Wierwille's brand of dispensationalism and that caused them to "translate" a particular verse in a particular way that might be contrary to a detached analysis of the "original" text is perfectly fair game. [The names of Schoenheit and Lynn are being used for the purpose of example only. I don't know specifically who is credited with the REV, but it's not really relevant to what I'm saying here. Insert the actual names or remove those that don't belong, and my point remains the same].
Moderating is an art, not a science. Conversations flow. People tell jokes. People digress. It's natural. Policing every post would lead inevitably to "legalism," and the moderators have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in such a practice. The rules are intended to facilitate conversation, not to stifle it.
So we're going to leave this thread alone and admonish the participants to please remember the thread topic and the purpose of doctrinal. If we were to take a legalistic approach, we would be compelled to agree with MRAP and move/moderate a number of posts on this thread. Then we'd be micromanaging. But any call to return a thread to topic needs to be respected, even if it does not result in any moderation of posts that preceded it.
Personality clashes will happen. Mods will jump in when needed to keep the peace. As MRAP has noted elsewhere, we are all adults here. Whether another poster likes him or not is irrelevant. Whether a moderator likes him or not is irrelevant. As long as he sticks to the rules and/or the natural flow of a conversation, we're not going to have a moderator-problem with him or anyone else.
Thanks, moderators all, for everything you do here. This is a well run site and the spirit of the rules prevail here, as you said to facilitate discussion.
Because of this, I, and I'm sure many others have learned much. I'm glad to be here. My hand has been slapped a time or two but you mods go out of your way to be fair.
Folks, there have been alot of statements anti the REV translation that I enjoy reading by JS, et.al. and I have asked you all to point out the specifics on the doctrinal forum and we can discuss those issues but except for Wordwolf I have heard nothing.
Not quite sure if Wordwolf and I finished a discussion since I was off the internet periodically for extended periods (that's not a valid excuse) - I need to revisit past stuff on the doctrinal forum to ensure past issues have been resolved. Last I recall, the last doctrinal forum discussion I introduced was that of the Caiaphas prophecy.
I realize that JS has past twi ties and that makes him and anything he does a GSC target but please, looking past that, take a look at the work that has been done on the REV and respond.
I know this is a personal request. If the research is bad, I want to know.
Yes, I am a little turd on other forums but when it comes to the doctrinal forum: I be all eyes and ears.
Hi MRAP,
I thought I should say something on this thread in doctrinal after opening my big mouth recently on another thread in an Offshoots sub-forum. And for that post I do apologize for launching a tirade over VPW and certain offshoots which I often view as derivatives – and perhaps that’s the aftertaste of my 12 year stint with TWI talking.
Anyway, I don’t have anything substantial to say here like some others have – I find this thread interesting and informative – I’ve enjoyed hearing how others approach different versions / translations and certain topics. I’ve pared down my modest collection of versions of the Bible (mostly due to constraints of space unless they were on software) and still refer to them when doing a serious study - but my favorite versions to read has not changed over the years: KJV (just because that was so drilled into my head from TWI years that I can easily and quickly recall where a passage is located if I am putting something together), NIV (my top choice for casual reading - for enjoyment – and most of my research and reference tools are keyed to NIV too), NASB (for when I want to get into some serious studying – usually I read a chapter or whole book several times and then start mapping out where to dig in – NASB is a very wooden read – but also one of the most consistent in how they translated), and last the NET (I enjoy following all the translator’s notes – and will check out some of their references if accessible).
I’ll try to be honest and try to lay aside any bias or negativity I have toward STF’s REV Bible and to be fair I’ve only read a few sections of it as well as the commentary section. I will try to be brief and to the point on my take of it.
As I said I have not read the whole thing – and don’t really intend to – and I hope I did enough homework to qualify to say something on this thread. I was a little thrown off by the beginning comments of the REV – in that it would not be a consistent translation throughout – but would toggle between dynamic equivalent and literal where needed. See quote from website below:
“We have worked to keep the REV as a literal translation whenever appropriate, like the ASV or King James. It is not a “dynamic equivalent translation,” such as the NIV, although there are times when, to make good sense in English, we had to depart from a strictly literal translation. Our goal is to eventually have an “essentially literal” translation of the Bible that more closely represents biblical truth than any other translation currently on the market, and also one that is written in today’s English.”
But at least they’re honest about it – and further down in the opening comments they’re also honest about their theology having a bearing on the translation work as Raf pointed out. And on that note I must say my theology also has a bearing on what versions I prefer to read. I am a Trinitarian, favor the doctrine of cessationism, and do not follow dispensationalism. But throwing caution to the wind I skipped around to read different sections – but will just make a few comments on John 1 and commentary for obvious Trinitarian reasons (see links to both below). I didn’t like that they got rid of the “him” and went with “it” in verses 1 through 4. I’m not a staunch Trinitarian and will concede there are passages in the Bible that clearly indicate Jesus was fully human. But there are also passages that give me the impression they are referencing Jesus’ deity. I think John 1 happens to be one of the sections of scripture that speak of his divinity. Altogether I think Jesus is presented as a being who is one of a kind.
This also brings me back to the powerful influence of theology on one’s viewpoint. I have to admit – I think the biggest obstacle in my mind (maybe some others have this problem too) when approaching certain topics of the Bible is that I’m uncomfortable with mysteries and paradoxes. I could be wrong on this but I think VPW had a big problem with that too. I think he may have had a tendency to adjust certain topics in an effort to funnel them down so they fit into a system of thought – into something he could understand – don’t know – I’m just thinking out loud here folks. There’s other mysterious or paradoxical topics too – like the sovereignty of God and man’s freedom of will, or that the scriptures written by humans are indeed the very words of God.
Getting back to REV Bible and commentary of John 1 – I noticed a glaring omission in not handling a key word - - “with” in verses 1 and 2. VPW sidestepped the issue of Jesus’ deity with his screwy misinterpretation of the Greek word pros = with as in “the Word was WITH God” – saying there was only one way that Jesus could be with God in the beginning, by being in God’s foreknowledge, in the mind of God – in other words, Jesus Christ wasn’t really there in any way, shape or form.
I’ve read the REV commentary on John 1: 1 & 2 several times – and maybe I’m missing something – so please point it out to me if I have – but their commentary does NOT really address “the Word was WITH God” - they ignore the Greek word pros and instead go on a lengthy discussion of logos.
A footnote in the NET Bible on the word with in John 1: 1 & 2 says that the word Greek word pros (with) implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship; the footnote also references The Expositor’s Greek testament where it says pros is regularly employed to express the presence of one person with another. I follow what the REV commentary is saying about logos “…In both Greek literature and Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings that fall into two basic categories: one is the mind and products of the mind like “reason,” (the word “logic” is ultimately from the root logos), and the other is the expression of that reason in language or life…” But I fail to see how that trumps the word pros (with) that implies there was someone besides God in the beginning and then later that someone is incarnated – in human form – “the Word became flesh and took up residence among us” (John 1: 14 NET).
Also the REV commentary goes to great lengths to disassociate “the Word” from referring to Jesus Crist – and I follow their argument to a point – but I also can see it as Jesus Christ is the personification of the mind of God, the expression of God – and so maybe the problem is with me getting lost in the semantics…Also other verses like Revelation 19:13 “And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God” (KJV) still come to mind.
So anyway – let’s just say I’m not crazy about the REV Bible – but that’s just me and my own screwy theology. And I thought I owed it to MRAP to give some feedback here anyway. Hey, if anyone enjoys reading that version – keep on enjoying it!
T-Bone,first of all: thanks. Ironic as this might seem, I have been reading the first chapter of John these past few days in the REV and the commentary is quite lengthy as you know. Yes, VPW had an affiliation with the word pros and went on numerous tangents; the REV/John.S goes even further with logos and as you stated, does not address pros.
I have read your dissertation quite carefully and you are spot on regarding what the REV is "pushing". I grew up Lutheran (Trinitarian) but never was a Trinitarian and neither was a grandmother who was also a Lutheran. You are a Trinitarian and I am not. The battle between beleifs such as ours has never ended well - i.e., resolution.
I would never initiate a discussion on the Trinity since I believe it can not be resolved; I have come to accept that as important as it might be to the core of our beleif systems and personal theology that Christians can discuss Biblical issues that don't include the Trinity.
Moving on, I have not had too many questions regarding the REV itself and when I have posted here on the doctrinal forum it is not necessarily rooted in something written in the REV but in other "versions" as well. I also am a KJV groopy - it's comfortable.
In the future, I will just not stipulate any version. There is another thread here in doctrinal that is active that I wanted to interject on but need to get to Ezekiel and find the C and V.
thanks for your encouraging remarks – and just to clarify my position on certain polarizing issues like the Trinity – I am not as hard core as some might think; I agree with you in that I too believe it cannot be resolved – and as I expressed in my previous post, there are quite a few biblical topics that seem to be contradictory or inexplicable when considering all the passages that address a particular subject. I am glad I am not a theologian or a pastor – I think I would feel compelled to explain things so it made sense to others.
Is it the nature of faith or my little pea-brain that doesn’t want to deem it all nonsense? Not sure….Maybe I like to say I believe in the Trinity just because I have the freedom to do so after leaving TWI ! (although Triunity might better express a working relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit)
Anyway, on topics that contain so many mysterious elements I don’t get hung up in taking sides and try to respect other viewpoints – since I believe no one has all the answers. I may be fuzzy on a lot of doctrine – but I do think the simple moral demands of scripture are more important (love thy neighbor, don’t lie, don’t steal, etc.). When it comes to Jesus Christ – whether a Christian imagines he is God or is not God – perhaps the really important issue is whether or not he is Lord in my life – do I follow what he says to do.
I believe it all makes sense from God’s perspective – but life is often confusing as hell from my perspective. Maybe I’m copping out….and maybe it’s faith – but I do get the idea the Bible presents both perspectives – and maybe that’s where I get the hope that some day it will all make sense to me.
Mr. T-Bone, thanks for understanding why I don't wanna hash on the trinity thing.
I have posted some issues on the REV which have been addressed per the content and not the folks at STF, for which, I am thankful to the posters.
My thanks to DWBH for getting me back into reading more of the gospels than the Pauline Episteles; it's a good thing, reading the words of Christ.
Am sure though that DWBH would not approve of reading the REV as much as other versions: outside the REV it's mostly the KJV and prior to posting, I have to go on line to reference the many other versions, NIV, etc. The thing is, in the REV commentary those other versions are already referenced. I think the REV commentary does a good job referencing other texts, et.al. and gives the credit, unlike the manners of TWI that leaves it up to the reader and that they will assume it was TWI that did all the research.
I read the REV on a daily basis and even though I have some concerns where I think JS has made leaps to the conclusion I don't post those as they seem ambiguous, mostly trinity issues so I just let that slide. Like I stated, discussions/debates on the trinity are "futile".
T-Bone, thanks for your acceptance and open mindedness to my posts.
The matter of the trinity must never deter one from talking the word and appreciation of Christian fellowship. Most of my family are Trinitarians, yet, on Christmas, in their Lutheran church with a very fantastic pastor, I just appreciate the fellowship and beauty of the moment (only my brother and sons know that I don't believe in the trinity).
I once learned a lesson over 40 years ago when I tried to teach my folks about 4 crucified - What a mistake.
Yes, I got way off topic and began to spew. Any further posts I have for the doctrinal forum will be a new topic/thread and then I will stipulate my references, i.e. REV, KJV,NIV, etc.. since the forum is not about source as much as it is about substance unless I have a particular question with a version, i.e.: the REV.
My thanks to DWBH for getting me back into reading more of the gospels than the Pauline Episteles; it's a good thing, reading the words of Christ.
Reading (and learning) is all good and well, but do you suppose they have a superior application or meaning to us than what is written in the Pauline epistles?
If so, what do you make of what is written in Matthew 10:5? When do you suppose this was rescinded or changed? And if you think it's Acts 1:8, why did the 12 apostles evidently disobey and stay in Jerusalem when others were forced out, and why does Acts 11:19 confirm that the outreach up to that point (many, many years after Pentecost in Acts 2) had been unto the Jews only? But if that's not plain enough, there's always Romans 15:8.
Whoa TLC, I just got back on line, was down at my folks and no internet. I will look over those references you noted. What I said about DWBH was meant that he influenced me to look back towards the gospels rather than mostly concentrating on the Pauline Epistiles. It's the excellent blend I have always enjoyed. I have learned, it's always best to keep your thoughts to yourself until you are ready to really speak. I still have to look at something in Ezekiel regarding another doctrinal forum topic.
It took me far, far too long to acknowledge and see just how many of "the promises" that are written in scriptures aren't actually written to us (and therefore, don't necessarily apply.) Living by or under the terms of law is, without a doubt, different then living by or under the terms of grace. Throughout the scriptures, Israel continually depicts a nation of men that are inextricably bound to their five senses... and God deals with them on that level, over and over and over and over (up to, and through the life of Jesus Christ), even as He will, once again, in the (very near) future.
Understanding that just might set a person free from the onus of certain shortfalls or deficiencies in "receiving" certain things said to be "available" (if you would only believe the scriptures.) It's not that God can't, won't or doesn't (from time to time) go above and beyond for us in the physical wants or needs in this life... but, if that's our primary desire or focus, there are far greater truths and spiritual realities in life that will remain hidden.
I have learned, it's always best to keep your thoughts to yourself until you are ready to really speak. I still have to look at something in Ezekiel regarding another doctrinal forum topic.
In the 1600s, Descartes proposed an idea as the very basis the scientific method, to begin by finding a fundamental truth (which was assumed), to proceed by the use of logic to come up with hypotheses, further possible truths, and then to find ways to test the possible truths against objective reality. Only when these tests succeeded would the new truth become established.
In the early 1800s, German theologians were able to institute a department of theology at the new University of Berlin only by promising that their theology would be "scientific." This led to the "higher criticism" approach to interpreting the Bible. Because the science of the 19th century was deterministic, the fundamental assumption of the liberal protestant theology that followed was that every reference to the "supernatural" in the Bible was fiction. No hypothesis of the new theology was testable against objective reality (the text of the Bible) because the text was a priori NOT TRUE.
The fundamental assumption of the conservative reaction to liberalism was that EVERY reference to the "supernatural" in the Bible is literally, historically true. This is called "inerrancy", and is the fundamental "truth" of "fundamentalism", which changed its name to "evangelical Protestantism" in the 1920s.
Both liberal and evangelical protestant theologies are based on Descartes' idea that truth can be found by logical manipulation of a fundamental truth (assumption), but theology, as opposed to science, does not accept appeal to objective reality as a criterion for determining which ideas are true and which are not. They both rely on logic alone.
Both approaches lead to what is known as "systematic" theologies. A systematic theology is one where the logical system of interpretation takes precedence over the text. Systematic theology says "The few difficult verses must be interpreted in light of the many clear verses." As some of us may well remember, this was one of Wierwille's favorite aphorisms. In contrast to systematic theology stands "constructive" theology, where the text takes precedence over the system. Constructive theology says "The fact that a few verses seem difficult means that your understanding of the "many clear verses" is not complete. Constructive theology tests the value of a proposed interpretation against the objective reality of the text!
Schoenheit's REV is not just bad theology, it is TERRIBLE theology. It would and should FAIL in any formal academic setting, or even as a presentation at a Society of Biblical Literature meeting. The SBL is a club for Bible scholars, and it's annual conference is very much like GenCon is to gamers.
Wierwille's logical system was based on two fundamental assumptions: 1) plenary verbal inspiration (inerrancy of the original texts, to which we do not have access) and 2) the dispensationalist assumption that on the day of Pentecost the Church was a wholly new thing, completely separate and discontinuous from Israel.
Instead of approaching the text itself to see whether or not the things Wierwille had taught were true, Schoenheit doubled down on Wierwille's erroneous "administration of the mystery", transforming it into GOD'S SACRED SECRET! How often have I heard the CES boys say or write "logic dictates that..."?
The REV is NOT a new translation. Schoenheit found a version of the Bible that was in the public domain so that he wouldn't have to do the actual work of translation. All Schoenheit did was to add a whole bunch of scholarly sounding but irrelevant notes, and to change the "few difficult verses" to line up with his particular system. Schoenheit did not translate, he CORRUPTED the text he plagiarized. That is dishonest scholarship as dishonest as it comes. I don't think it was malicious, but as every professional scholar knows, plagiarism doesn't have to be malicious in order to be dishonest.
If you enjoy reading the REV, that's a wonderful thing, though not on the same level of scholarship as the Scofield Reference Bible. Scofield did not change the wording of the text to line up with his system. At the School of Theology we use the NRSV for the sake of uniformity, but all the versions have their own strengths and weaknesses.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
16
17
17
Popular Days
Apr 22
6
Feb 25
5
Mar 17
5
Feb 4
5
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 9 posts
Steve Lortz 16 posts
MRAP 17 posts
TLC 17 posts
Popular Days
Apr 22 2015
6 posts
Feb 25 2016
5 posts
Mar 17 2015
5 posts
Feb 4 2017
5 posts
Popular Posts
Steve Lortz
MRAP - We are old farts together, you and I. I hope you are holding up as well as I am. One time, I wrote a haiku for credit in one of my Old Testament classes on the book of Ecclesiastes. It went lik
Steve Lortz
Thank you for your friendship, Raf! Three years ago, I was in intensive care for nearly a week because of a potassium overdose. I took some kidney and heart damage. About a year and a half ago, I
Steve Lortz
Some thoughts regarding Schoenheit's REV: In the 1600s, Descartes proposed an idea as the very basis the scientific method, to begin by finding a fundamental truth (which was assumed), to proceed
Mark Sanguinetti
It looks to me like the Way Ministry got their teachings on adminstration from EW Bullinger's book "How to Enjoy the Bible". This book may have been misread. I have only read parts of this book as instead for bible study I use my bible software and look up information myself. However, as an analysis of Oikonomia from this book at least Bullinger as read on page 79, figured out that oikonomia "was used of the management or administration of a household". Did Victor Wierwille and other people involved see that???
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
The book was recommended reading, and sold in the bookstore. Hasn't it been discussed already that most of what he taught on this came predominately from Bullinger's work on it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
FFIW: Wierwille wasn't really interested in accuracy as long as he could make his doctrine fit the Scriptures. Remember the "hand in the glove"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I don't think Wierwille was interested in making his doctrine fit the Scriptures. What he did was to pervert the Scriptures to rationalize his sin...
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
I am thankfull to be reading the posts on this thread: how do I say "good" and thanks.
Please do not bring in vpw's junk into the discussion, he's dead to me, yeh, he's dead but I mean the spew he spread is dead.
I am outside your research expertise but enjoy the fruits of your work: thank you.
I read religeously.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Since you are a follower of schoenheit and lynn, vic is still quite alive in you. Plagiarizing the plagiarizer and others is their trademark. Where do you think they each get 80% of all their doctrine and classes from? Funny that you should need to come here to the GSC to gain your "research expertise". You're a self-described follower of schoenheit and lynn, the 2 greatest living biblical "researchers" on the planet in their own minds. Why not go to them with all your foolish questions about the rev? Don't trust them? Or, just trolling the GSC for them?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
My modhat is going to be half on/half off for this one.
DWBH, please avoid making it personal. This thread is about the REV, not MRAP's loyalties. Whether he has discussed the questions he's raising with Lynn, Schoenheit, Graeser, Geer, Cummins, Finnegan, Wilkinson, Caballero, Townsend or Dorothea Kipp is between him and them. His questions are fair game for this forum.
He is entitled to ask them. He is not entitled to a response; that's up to other posters who are interested in the material. If no one is interested
MRAP: It is not reasonable to try to separate the REV from the people who produced it, and (modhat off, opinion follows) it is not possible to divorce their presuppositions from Wierwille. So to ask people to not talk about Wierwille's "junk" is reasonable if we're talking about his personal failings, but it is not reasonable if you're talking about his doctrine and/or how he developed it. Those doctrines are entirely relevant to the REV because they informed the people who produced it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
I have not posted on this thread for awhile and have no intention to post on this thread anymore even though it's in the doctrinal forum. There's nothing to learn or hear that has not already been extrapolated from other venues. Even though I started this sub forum in honest intent it's quite obvious it belongs elsewhere so the REV and its' developers can be bashed without reservation: I would suggest under the TWI forum since it now seems that off shoots like STF are consolidated with twi though I find that repulsive.
I noted that some changes have been made in relocating sub-forums, probably a good idea. The REV should be taken outa the doctrinal forum since it is a magnet for bashing even though it should not be discerned against any differently than any other Biblical version.
I would like to see the doctrinal forum be just that: doctrinal discourse without dragging in dislikes for those who posed certain Biblical ideas.
I know, it's not my call how GSC constructs their forums, I only put in my 2 cents with the intent to keeping the doctrinal forum free of personal attacks and sticking to doctrinal debate. I rarely pose questions on the doctrinal forum but I most certainly appreciate reading the subjects on the forum - their are some thoughtfull and well researched folks who post on doctrinal.
Now that was a long write, I need to take a breath.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Entirely possible that you're right and I'm wrong on this one, MRAP. I'll sleep on it. If I don't change my mind, I will at least ask for a second opinion.
Thank you for the constructive criticism.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
Hey, Raf, check it out with Donny, Leo and Mikey.
Levity is a mighty good medicine; just order a pizza and listen to Splinter and watch out for Shredder.
I'm an ol'e TMNT fan - my kids were nuts.
Yeh, I know, you gotta be stern at all times.
Gotta go, think I got foot clan breaking into the house.
Yeh, I know, it belongs on St.George's forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Thanks for your input Raf.
I agree mrap can ask anything he wants. He can believe whatever he chooses to and say it. Frankly, I am annoyed at the same questions over and over again despite a good volume of info spoon fed him by a number of posters here in answer to those questions. I believe he is patronizing down here. I mean when a member admits to purposely being "a little turd" on every forum except Doctrinal, and then continues along as if no one ever answered him, well, that just gets rude and mean. His questions have been answered excellently by educated folks here several times now. Apparently he is either not reading or hearing what is said.
Then he repeatedly insults the GSC by saying the site is worthless, how many new members or twit refugees has the Spot had in the last year?....
Whom have we really helped if anyone? All we do is bash everyone he loves and follows according to him. There's no objectivity here, nothing here he can't get at any other site, he doesn't like this forum or that sub-forum, and he demands things be done his way and then whines when they aren't.
I will do my best to comply with the rules and play nice. Feel free to delete any posts of mine you deem inappropriate on any forum here. I have respect for this site and for the people who have kept it going and continue to do so. I love this place. I will do my best to play nice. TY.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Slept on it.
I think MRAP is correct. We are mixing things up to an extent that makes the conversation difficult to follow, and there is an expectation that we will confine ourselves to the topics at hand.
The doctrinal section is intended to divorce personalities from what the Bible actually teaches, and to another extent whether one interpretation of the Bible should be preferred over another. The issue of whether the Bible is credible also falls under doctrinal, but we created "Questioning Faith" to house such discussions to keep them from interrupting discussions that are purely about what the Bible teaches.
But in practical terms, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to separate doctrines from the people presenting them. Thus, a conversation about the REV, even in doctrinal, will naturally include the people who produced the REV. We can be sticklers and demand that we evaluate the REV on its own merits. That would be in keeping with the purpose of the Doctrinal section. If we are going to discuss the motives of the people who produced it, we should only do so in order to shed light on the specific doctrinal issue being raised. Saying Schoenheit and Lynn were influenced by Wierwille is insufficient for that purpose. Saying that they were influenced by Wierwille's brand of dispensationalism and that caused them to "translate" a particular verse in a particular way that might be contrary to a detached analysis of the "original" text is perfectly fair game. [The names of Schoenheit and Lynn are being used for the purpose of example only. I don't know specifically who is credited with the REV, but it's not really relevant to what I'm saying here. Insert the actual names or remove those that don't belong, and my point remains the same].
Moderating is an art, not a science. Conversations flow. People tell jokes. People digress. It's natural. Policing every post would lead inevitably to "legalism," and the moderators have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in such a practice. The rules are intended to facilitate conversation, not to stifle it.
So we're going to leave this thread alone and admonish the participants to please remember the thread topic and the purpose of doctrinal. If we were to take a legalistic approach, we would be compelled to agree with MRAP and move/moderate a number of posts on this thread. Then we'd be micromanaging. But any call to return a thread to topic needs to be respected, even if it does not result in any moderation of posts that preceded it.
Personality clashes will happen. Mods will jump in when needed to keep the peace. As MRAP has noted elsewhere, we are all adults here. Whether another poster likes him or not is irrelevant. Whether a moderator likes him or not is irrelevant. As long as he sticks to the rules and/or the natural flow of a conversation, we're not going to have a moderator-problem with him or anyone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Well said Raf. TY.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Thanks, moderators all, for everything you do here. This is a well run site and the spirit of the rules prevail here, as you said to facilitate discussion.
Because of this, I, and I'm sure many others have learned much. I'm glad to be here. My hand has been slapped a time or two but you mods go out of your way to be fair.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Good, everyone just stop name-calling and personal abuse.
Stick to the topic in hand and it will all be so much more legible and understandable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hi MRAP,
I thought I should say something on this thread in doctrinal after opening my big mouth recently on another thread in an Offshoots sub-forum. And for that post I do apologize for launching a tirade over VPW and certain offshoots which I often view as derivatives – and perhaps that’s the aftertaste of my 12 year stint with TWI talking.
Anyway, I don’t have anything substantial to say here like some others have – I find this thread interesting and informative – I’ve enjoyed hearing how others approach different versions / translations and certain topics. I’ve pared down my modest collection of versions of the Bible (mostly due to constraints of space unless they were on software) and still refer to them when doing a serious study - but my favorite versions to read has not changed over the years: KJV (just because that was so drilled into my head from TWI years that I can easily and quickly recall where a passage is located if I am putting something together), NIV (my top choice for casual reading - for enjoyment – and most of my research and reference tools are keyed to NIV too), NASB (for when I want to get into some serious studying – usually I read a chapter or whole book several times and then start mapping out where to dig in – NASB is a very wooden read – but also one of the most consistent in how they translated), and last the NET (I enjoy following all the translator’s notes – and will check out some of their references if accessible).
I’ll try to be honest and try to lay aside any bias or negativity I have toward STF’s REV Bible and to be fair I’ve only read a few sections of it as well as the commentary section. I will try to be brief and to the point on my take of it.
As I said I have not read the whole thing – and don’t really intend to – and I hope I did enough homework to qualify to say something on this thread. I was a little thrown off by the beginning comments of the REV – in that it would not be a consistent translation throughout – but would toggle between dynamic equivalent and literal where needed. See quote from website below:
“We have worked to keep the REV as a literal translation whenever appropriate, like the ASV or King James. It is not a “dynamic equivalent translation,” such as the NIV, although there are times when, to make good sense in English, we had to depart from a strictly literal translation. Our goal is to eventually have an “essentially literal” translation of the Bible that more closely represents biblical truth than any other translation currently on the market, and also one that is written in today’s English.”
beginning comments of REV Bible
But at least they’re honest about it – and further down in the opening comments they’re also honest about their theology having a bearing on the translation work as Raf pointed out. And on that note I must say my theology also has a bearing on what versions I prefer to read. I am a Trinitarian, favor the doctrine of cessationism, and do not follow dispensationalism. But throwing caution to the wind I skipped around to read different sections – but will just make a few comments on John 1 and commentary for obvious Trinitarian reasons (see links to both below). I didn’t like that they got rid of the “him” and went with “it” in verses 1 through 4. I’m not a staunch Trinitarian and will concede there are passages in the Bible that clearly indicate Jesus was fully human. But there are also passages that give me the impression they are referencing Jesus’ deity. I think John 1 happens to be one of the sections of scripture that speak of his divinity. Altogether I think Jesus is presented as a being who is one of a kind.
This also brings me back to the powerful influence of theology on one’s viewpoint. I have to admit – I think the biggest obstacle in my mind (maybe some others have this problem too) when approaching certain topics of the Bible is that I’m uncomfortable with mysteries and paradoxes. I could be wrong on this but I think VPW had a big problem with that too. I think he may have had a tendency to adjust certain topics in an effort to funnel them down so they fit into a system of thought – into something he could understand – don’t know – I’m just thinking out loud here folks. There’s other mysterious or paradoxical topics too – like the sovereignty of God and man’s freedom of will, or that the scriptures written by humans are indeed the very words of God.
Getting back to REV Bible and commentary of John 1 – I noticed a glaring omission in not handling a key word - - “with” in verses 1 and 2. VPW sidestepped the issue of Jesus’ deity with his screwy misinterpretation of the Greek word pros = with as in “the Word was WITH God” – saying there was only one way that Jesus could be with God in the beginning, by being in God’s foreknowledge, in the mind of God – in other words, Jesus Christ wasn’t really there in any way, shape or form.
I’ve read the REV commentary on John 1: 1 & 2 several times – and maybe I’m missing something – so please point it out to me if I have – but their commentary does NOT really address “the Word was WITH God” - they ignore the Greek word pros and instead go on a lengthy discussion of logos.
A footnote in the NET Bible on the word with in John 1: 1 & 2 says that the word Greek word pros (with) implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship; the footnote also references The Expositor’s Greek testament where it says pros is regularly employed to express the presence of one person with another. I follow what the REV commentary is saying about logos “…In both Greek literature and Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings that fall into two basic categories: one is the mind and products of the mind like “reason,” (the word “logic” is ultimately from the root logos), and the other is the expression of that reason in language or life…” But I fail to see how that trumps the word pros (with) that implies there was someone besides God in the beginning and then later that someone is incarnated – in human form – “the Word became flesh and took up residence among us” (John 1: 14 NET).
Also the REV commentary goes to great lengths to disassociate “the Word” from referring to Jesus Crist – and I follow their argument to a point – but I also can see it as Jesus Christ is the personification of the mind of God, the expression of God – and so maybe the problem is with me getting lost in the semantics…Also other verses like Revelation 19:13 “And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God” (KJV) still come to mind.
So anyway – let’s just say I’m not crazy about the REV Bible – but that’s just me and my own screwy theology. And I thought I owed it to MRAP to give some feedback here anyway. Hey, if anyone enjoys reading that version – keep on enjoying it!
God bless and peace!
T-Bone
REV Bible John chapter 1
REV Bible commentary of John chapter 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
T-Bone,first of all: thanks. Ironic as this might seem, I have been reading the first chapter of John these past few days in the REV and the commentary is quite lengthy as you know. Yes, VPW had an affiliation with the word pros and went on numerous tangents; the REV/John.S goes even further with logos and as you stated, does not address pros.
I have read your dissertation quite carefully and you are spot on regarding what the REV is "pushing". I grew up Lutheran (Trinitarian) but never was a Trinitarian and neither was a grandmother who was also a Lutheran. You are a Trinitarian and I am not. The battle between beleifs such as ours has never ended well - i.e., resolution.
I would never initiate a discussion on the Trinity since I believe it can not be resolved; I have come to accept that as important as it might be to the core of our beleif systems and personal theology that Christians can discuss Biblical issues that don't include the Trinity.
Moving on, I have not had too many questions regarding the REV itself and when I have posted here on the doctrinal forum it is not necessarily rooted in something written in the REV but in other "versions" as well. I also am a KJV groopy - it's comfortable.
In the future, I will just not stipulate any version. There is another thread here in doctrinal that is active that I wanted to interject on but need to get to Ezekiel and find the C and V.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hi MRAP,
thanks for your encouraging remarks – and just to clarify my position on certain polarizing issues like the Trinity – I am not as hard core as some might think; I agree with you in that I too believe it cannot be resolved – and as I expressed in my previous post, there are quite a few biblical topics that seem to be contradictory or inexplicable when considering all the passages that address a particular subject. I am glad I am not a theologian or a pastor – I think I would feel compelled to explain things so it made sense to others.
Is it the nature of faith or my little pea-brain that doesn’t want to deem it all nonsense? Not sure….Maybe I like to say I believe in the Trinity just because I have the freedom to do so after leaving TWI ! (although Triunity might better express a working relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit)
Anyway, on topics that contain so many mysterious elements I don’t get hung up in taking sides and try to respect other viewpoints – since I believe no one has all the answers. I may be fuzzy on a lot of doctrine – but I do think the simple moral demands of scripture are more important (love thy neighbor, don’t lie, don’t steal, etc.). When it comes to Jesus Christ – whether a Christian imagines he is God or is not God – perhaps the really important issue is whether or not he is Lord in my life – do I follow what he says to do.
I believe it all makes sense from God’s perspective – but life is often confusing as hell from my perspective. Maybe I’m copping out….and maybe it’s faith – but I do get the idea the Bible presents both perspectives – and maybe that’s where I get the hope that some day it will all make sense to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
Mr. T-Bone, thanks for understanding why I don't wanna hash on the trinity thing.
I have posted some issues on the REV which have been addressed per the content and not the folks at STF, for which, I am thankful to the posters.
My thanks to DWBH for getting me back into reading more of the gospels than the Pauline Episteles; it's a good thing, reading the words of Christ.
Am sure though that DWBH would not approve of reading the REV as much as other versions: outside the REV it's mostly the KJV and prior to posting, I have to go on line to reference the many other versions, NIV, etc. The thing is, in the REV commentary those other versions are already referenced. I think the REV commentary does a good job referencing other texts, et.al. and gives the credit, unlike the manners of TWI that leaves it up to the reader and that they will assume it was TWI that did all the research.
I read the REV on a daily basis and even though I have some concerns where I think JS has made leaps to the conclusion I don't post those as they seem ambiguous, mostly trinity issues so I just let that slide. Like I stated, discussions/debates on the trinity are "futile".
T-Bone, thanks for your acceptance and open mindedness to my posts.
The matter of the trinity must never deter one from talking the word and appreciation of Christian fellowship. Most of my family are Trinitarians, yet, on Christmas, in their Lutheran church with a very fantastic pastor, I just appreciate the fellowship and beauty of the moment (only my brother and sons know that I don't believe in the trinity).
I once learned a lesson over 40 years ago when I tried to teach my folks about 4 crucified - What a mistake.
Yes, I got way off topic and began to spew. Any further posts I have for the doctrinal forum will be a new topic/thread and then I will stipulate my references, i.e. REV, KJV,NIV, etc.. since the forum is not about source as much as it is about substance unless I have a particular question with a version, i.e.: the REV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Reading (and learning) is all good and well, but do you suppose they have a superior application or meaning to us than what is written in the Pauline epistles?
If so, what do you make of what is written in Matthew 10:5? When do you suppose this was rescinded or changed? And if you think it's Acts 1:8, why did the 12 apostles evidently disobey and stay in Jerusalem when others were forced out, and why does Acts 11:19 confirm that the outreach up to that point (many, many years after Pentecost in Acts 2) had been unto the Jews only? But if that's not plain enough, there's always Romans 15:8.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
Whoa TLC, I just got back on line, was down at my folks and no internet. I will look over those references you noted. What I said about DWBH was meant that he influenced me to look back towards the gospels rather than mostly concentrating on the Pauline Epistiles. It's the excellent blend I have always enjoyed. I have learned, it's always best to keep your thoughts to yourself until you are ready to really speak. I still have to look at something in Ezekiel regarding another doctrinal forum topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
It took me far, far too long to acknowledge and see just how many of "the promises" that are written in scriptures aren't actually written to us (and therefore, don't necessarily apply.) Living by or under the terms of law is, without a doubt, different then living by or under the terms of grace. Throughout the scriptures, Israel continually depicts a nation of men that are inextricably bound to their five senses... and God deals with them on that level, over and over and over and over (up to, and through the life of Jesus Christ), even as He will, once again, in the (very near) future.
Understanding that just might set a person free from the onus of certain shortfalls or deficiencies in "receiving" certain things said to be "available" (if you would only believe the scriptures.) It's not that God can't, won't or doesn't (from time to time) go above and beyond for us in the physical wants or needs in this life... but, if that's our primary desire or focus, there are far greater truths and spiritual realities in life that will remain hidden.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Still looking? say on...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Some thoughts regarding Schoenheit's REV:
In the 1600s, Descartes proposed an idea as the very basis the scientific method, to begin by finding a fundamental truth (which was assumed), to proceed by the use of logic to come up with hypotheses, further possible truths, and then to find ways to test the possible truths against objective reality. Only when these tests succeeded would the new truth become established.
In the early 1800s, German theologians were able to institute a department of theology at the new University of Berlin only by promising that their theology would be "scientific." This led to the "higher criticism" approach to interpreting the Bible. Because the science of the 19th century was deterministic, the fundamental assumption of the liberal protestant theology that followed was that every reference to the "supernatural" in the Bible was fiction. No hypothesis of the new theology was testable against objective reality (the text of the Bible) because the text was a priori NOT TRUE.
The fundamental assumption of the conservative reaction to liberalism was that EVERY reference to the "supernatural" in the Bible is literally, historically true. This is called "inerrancy", and is the fundamental "truth" of "fundamentalism", which changed its name to "evangelical Protestantism" in the 1920s.
Both liberal and evangelical protestant theologies are based on Descartes' idea that truth can be found by logical manipulation of a fundamental truth (assumption), but theology, as opposed to science, does not accept appeal to objective reality as a criterion for determining which ideas are true and which are not. They both rely on logic alone.
Both approaches lead to what is known as "systematic" theologies. A systematic theology is one where the logical system of interpretation takes precedence over the text. Systematic theology says "The few difficult verses must be interpreted in light of the many clear verses." As some of us may well remember, this was one of Wierwille's favorite aphorisms. In contrast to systematic theology stands "constructive" theology, where the text takes precedence over the system. Constructive theology says "The fact that a few verses seem difficult means that your understanding of the "many clear verses" is not complete. Constructive theology tests the value of a proposed interpretation against the objective reality of the text!
Schoenheit's REV is not just bad theology, it is TERRIBLE theology. It would and should FAIL in any formal academic setting, or even as a presentation at a Society of Biblical Literature meeting. The SBL is a club for Bible scholars, and it's annual conference is very much like GenCon is to gamers.
Wierwille's logical system was based on two fundamental assumptions: 1) plenary verbal inspiration (inerrancy of the original texts, to which we do not have access) and 2) the dispensationalist assumption that on the day of Pentecost the Church was a wholly new thing, completely separate and discontinuous from Israel.
Instead of approaching the text itself to see whether or not the things Wierwille had taught were true, Schoenheit doubled down on Wierwille's erroneous "administration of the mystery", transforming it into GOD'S SACRED SECRET! How often have I heard the CES boys say or write "logic dictates that..."?
The REV is NOT a new translation. Schoenheit found a version of the Bible that was in the public domain so that he wouldn't have to do the actual work of translation. All Schoenheit did was to add a whole bunch of scholarly sounding but irrelevant notes, and to change the "few difficult verses" to line up with his particular system. Schoenheit did not translate, he CORRUPTED the text he plagiarized. That is dishonest scholarship as dishonest as it comes. I don't think it was malicious, but as every professional scholar knows, plagiarism doesn't have to be malicious in order to be dishonest.
If you enjoy reading the REV, that's a wonderful thing, though not on the same level of scholarship as the Scofield Reference Bible. Scofield did not change the wording of the text to line up with his system. At the School of Theology we use the NRSV for the sake of uniformity, but all the versions have their own strengths and weaknesses.
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.