“After all, to paraphrase an old saying, truth on the heel of the devil is still truth” how is that applicable here? or to put it another way, what are you referring to?
Didn't think that would be hard to figure out. If truth can be found and separated from whatever else is written, then whatever is written might be thought useful or profitable. How many other ways can the something like that be said?
On 5/28/2017 at 4:25 PM, T-Bone said:
“A more common (and often more damaging) failure resides in elevating one truth at the expense of some other truth.” Care to elaborate on that – maybe an example or two.
Neither did I think that so difficult to be understood. My concern with giving any narrow example of it is that it might somehow limit or minimize the scope of its relevance or actual effect. Maybe I think it necessary to pray before eating, Maybe you don't. Maybe you think the essence of rightly dividing the word of truth necessitates knowing Greek and studying the etymology of each and every word in the verse. Maybe I think the essence of it necessitates knowing to whom it is written, In short, how or why any scripture is applicable (or is not applicable) to situations in life needs to be considered in light of when it is meant to apply, and not just in light of what is found written in the words of the verse.
Should I interpret the silence on the questions I asked about the return of Christ to mean everyone is stymied by them? ...so far?
Yeah, I'm stymied, alright. Stymied by why you think an unrelated topic belongs on this thread. Start a new one or move on with the discussion at hand. .
Didn't think that would be hard to figure out. If truth can be found and separated from whatever else is written, then whatever is written might be thought useful or profitable. How many other ways can the something like that be said?
Neither did I think that so difficult to be understood. My concern with giving any narrow example of it is that it might somehow limit or minimize the scope of its relevance or actual effect. Maybe I think it necessary to pray before eating, Maybe you don't. Maybe you think the essence of rightly dividing the word of truth necessitates knowing Greek and studying the etymology of each and every word in the verse. Maybe I think the essence of it necessitates knowing to whom it is written, In short, how or why any scripture is applicable (or is not applicable) to situations in life needs to be considered in light of when it is meant to apply, and not just in light of what is found written in the words of the verse.
(i've included your original comments and my questions to provide context and hopefully clarity)
TLC:After all, to paraphrase an old saying, truth on the heel of the devil is still truth
T-Bone: how is that applicable here? or to put it another way, what are you referring to?
TLC: Didn't think that would be hard to figure out.
T-Bone: I’m sorry but when someone responds to an honest question in such a patronizing tone, that usually causes me to ramp up the scrutiny on the “words of wisdom” they’re about to bring forth. And so…
TLC: If truth can be found and separated from whatever else is written, then whatever is written might be thought useful or profitable. How many other ways can the something like that be said?
T-Bone: I fail to see how “truth on the heel of the devil is still truth” is equated with “If truth can be found and separated from whatever else is written, then whatever is written might be thought useful or profitable.”
The first phrase (truth of the heel of the devil… etc.) reminds me of something from a Rabbi’s essay – to accept the truth from whatever source it comes. This speaks to acceptance – which is an indication that you approve or believe in it. Hopefully the information has already been vetted by the one accepting it as truth – unless we’re talking about accepting something on blind faith. I think a lot of PFAL students did just that when they first got involved with TWI – they accepted everything vpw said as the truth. btw - being gullible is not a good thing - it never turns out good.
Whereas your second phrase (if truth can be found and separated from whatever… etc.) is talking about analysis – using critical thinking – having a goal in mind - to identify and verify a particular truth, fact, etc. ,as distinct from the rest of the material surrounding it, which may not be truthful, accurate or factual. This type of thinking is encouraged at Grease Spot.
This may seem tedious to mention at this point – but my questions concern the key issue on this thread – “is it ok to recommend vpw’s books?” that’s why I asked how is that applicable here – and what were you referring to? It seems there’s been a few posters on this thread who have had great difficulty applying critical thinking to vpw’s books and seem to accept it all on blind faith as being ok. or they talk like they've checked it all out, done lots of research on their own and know what's what...but often in discussing a particular issue they still use PFAL as the yardstick for vetting something...Just thought I’d bring that to everyone’s attention again – and I do appreciate you facilitating that.
TLC: …A more common (and often more damaging) failure resides in elevating one truth at the expense of some other truth.”
T-Bone: Care to elaborate on that – maybe an example or two.
TLC: Neither did I think that so difficult to be understood. My concern with giving any narrow example of it is that it might somehow limit or minimize the scope of its relevance or actual effect. Maybe I think it necessary to pray before eating, Maybe you don't. Maybe you think the essence of rightly dividing the word of truth necessitates knowing Greek and studying the etymology of each and every word in the verse. Maybe I think the essence of it necessitates knowing to whom it is written, In short, how or why any scripture is applicable (or is not applicable) to situations in life needs to be considered in light of when it is meant to apply, and not just in light of what is found written in the words of the verse.
T-Bone: disregarding your second attempt at a condescending tone, I would have to say your paragraph has nothing to do with elevating one truth at the expense of some other truth – but rather it speaks to the pros and cons of one method of analysis as compared to another – in your second example, studying the biblical Greek compared to studying the passage in light of the target audience – what did it mean to the original audience and what does it mean to us now - how should we apply it sort of a thing. I think a good approach is looking at something from all angles – the original languages, culture, context, historical, geographical, political, etc....I'm also of the opinion a passage can have more than one interpretation and that it's possible to abstract more than one principle to address several situations.
(btw your other reference to a personal preference to pray or not to pray before eating is irrelevant to this discussion)
disregarding your second attempt at a condescending tone, I would have to say your paragraph has nothing to do with elevating one truth at the expense of some other truth
Yeah, well... we obviously see and speak on things differently, so please accept my apologies. I think I'll just bow out of the conversation and move on.
T-Bone, you're right. If I had suffered more, I'd have had a more difficult time arriving at my position. The confusion I had to deal with DID delay me a good 11 or 12 years before I came back to PFAL and started working the deeper details in the books. I feel much for those who suffered more. I think also of how Uriah's relatives felt. Things get pretty complicated and murky at times.
Since there's no actual reason to think Uriah's family had any reason to suspect anything improper happened, it is logical to think that Uriah's relatives mourned his death in combat, and then thought that it was good that his widow was taken care of- whether out of genuine concern for her, or out of relief that they didn't have to see to it, depending on how nice his family was.
BTW, elevating vpw to the same status as David in discussions is, well.....
Yeah, I'm stymied, alright. Stymied by why you think an unrelated topic belongs on this thread. Start a new one or move on with the discussion at hand. .
Bingo. Bonus points for "why you think anyone here thinks you have something to offer on a topic of substance." After years of nothing but smoke and allusions alternating with correctable/corrected errors, and elevation of the pfal books beyond anything vpw said about them, in between worship of vpw, we're skeptical you've anything of substance to bring to the table NOW.
And if anyone's wondering what I meant by worship of vpw, I meant comments that he was "born with an overabundance of brains and brawn", that he was "overgifted" and that "where he walked, the earth shook." At that level, it is NOT hyperbole to call that "worship", at least "hero worship".
After seeing some of this, I think that idle curiosity should be satisfied. One possible result of someone reading over vpw's books is thinking they replace the Bible and form God Almighty's revelation to us, thinking vpw was some superhuman, and seeing Jesus "many times" teaching from the Orange Book with it in his hand.
Did you forget where the doctrinal forum is? That's probably where you could get the attention of people who might be interested in engaging regarding those questions.
No, not forgotten, but I can be perfectly happy limiting my posting to the doctrinal forum, if that would help things go smoother here.
Like I said earlier, I’m not here to fight or recruit, just to say “Hi.”
That would also include catching up with the news, and cleaning up some loose ends if possible. I attempt to do the same thing with TWI about every 5 to 8 years, with varying results, sometimes not so bad.
The only reason I jumped on to this particular thread is because it’s right on topic with what I posted on most. Most of my posts have (or be working gradually towards) a strong theme of YES! We should by all means share Dr. Wierwille’s books with others. So, at least I’m on target with topic, and with a bull’s eye to boot!
Can this thread be moved into Doctrinal?
If not, should I start a new thread in Doctrinal?
I’m willing to cooperate. I’d love to see the same courtesy extended to me (try holding your nose) and allow me some thoughtful discussion, rather than just trying to nail me. Many of us have already been through 5 long years of that overly adversarial debate, and none of us want a repeat of what Oakspear called the Mike Wars.
You might find you have had some misunderstandings of my posting, and you might find that I can offer some good.
Peace.
PS - Rocky, this started out being addressed to you, but I drifted and started addressing everyone.
...The only reason I jumped on to this particular thread is because it’s right on topic with what I posted on most. Most of my posts have (or be working gradually towards) a strong theme of YES! We should by all means share Dr. Wierwille’s books with others. So, at least I’m on target with topic, and with a bull’s eye to boot!
Can this thread be moved into Doctrinal?
If not, should I start a new thread in Doctrinal?
I’m willing to cooperate. I’d love to see the same courtesy extended to me (try holding your nose) and allow me some thoughtful discussion, rather than just trying to nail me. Many of us have already been through 5 long years of that overly adversarial debate, and none of us want a repeat of what Oakspear called the Mike Wars.
You might find you have had some misunderstandings of my posting, and you might find that I can offer some good.
Peace.
PS - Rocky, this started out being addressed to you, but I drifted and started addressing everyone.
I think this thread has been a thoughtful discussion by all participants; speaking for myself – Mike, please try not to let your imagination run wild or allow some persecution complex to distort what others have said. I believe in calling a spade a spade and so I’ll refer to something by its appropriate name. If I call vpw a plagiarist – which is true according to all literary and legal standards – except yours – please do not take that as a personal attack or that I’m trying to nail you.
Plagiarism is only one of a multitude of reasons why I don’t think it’s ok to recommend vpw’s books. “Is it ok to recommend wierwille’s books?” is the question that started this thread and folks have responded, giving reasons why they think it is ok or it’s not ok to recommend his books.
If you would like to draw an analogy with a target and bulls-eye – there should be two targets – one is the pros of recommending wierwille’s books and the other is the cons of recommending wierwille’s books. Honestly, I would have to say there have been a lot of bulls-eye shots on the cons target. Don’t see a whole lot happening on the pros target. Mike, check your ammunition – I think you’re firing blanks.
Please pardon my tendency to lump most posters together into one set of motivations and methods. I only remember the distinct personalities of a few posters compared to the whole roster, but I can slowly learn (or re-learn) to recognize those who want to discuss things thoroughly. I thank you for your response.
One of the things I often urge grads (at least 5 times here) to do, in order to get plagiarism into a more balanced light, is consider carefully three different areas of human thought and activity. These 3 types of common activity are the bookselling market, the academic community, and a small family of 2 parents and 4 children.
NOW, does anyone here remember this argument of mine?
I would not want to place the same requirements on that small family regarding intellectual ownership and how knowledge gets distributed. Would you? Parents have to put footnotes on what they teach their children? Not reasonable.
How about a much larger family of 4 sets of sibling parents and their 16 children? Would it be plagiarism to print out teachings and instructions to a large family like that? I’d still say no.
When things started out with Dr's ministry they were just a small church in a small town. Should the collateral books been cluttered up with footnotes in that setting? I’d say no. In those days Dr invited lots of guest teachers to wherever his headquarters was. They got credit that way. Dr showed his students Bullinger and Kenyon. There were no secrets about his sources.
But then the ministry started growing explosively around 1970, and as it started expanding out of its tiny family-size arena it started growing into the two similar arenas of the book market and the academy. Before 1972 Dr had Elena Whiteside record and quote him saying that he was NOT the originator of most of what he taught, but that mostly he had only “put it all together.”
It’s also the case that in addition to deciding by revelation what portions of other authors to include in his teachings, he also decided by revelation what portions of those SAME authors to NOT include. I’ve never seen a poster here consider this when urging Wierwille readers to search out all his sources. What a burdensome homework assignment to give to students. Only a few in the tail of the bell curve will want to do that kind of thorough work.
Also, as the ministry continued to grow in the 70s and into the 80s FOOTNOTES and accreditation were added to the new publications. A strong example is the credit given to Dr. Martin from Pasadena, the one who cracked the code to the star of Bethlehem. In Volume 5 is another memorable citation where Dr quoted a page or two from Kenyon with proper academic credits. Again, these developments are never included in the plagiarism discussions.
If anyone here has a GENUINE interest in original thought (like I know I do) there is a fabulous book on it that is now 50 years old, but I've never seen a better one. It's called "The Act of Creation" and it was written by a smart, world renown polymath. I think he was teaching for the Psychology Department at Harvard when he wrote this book.
It shows how creative thought happens in science, humor, art and literature, and it does it in GREAT detail.
I did some Open Mic stand-up comedy for about 5 years not too long ago. I had heard that comedy workshop classes sometimes use the techniques inspired by the mechanics of this very enlightening book on human creativity and originality. It worked for me.
Oh, and surprise,surprise! "The Act of Creation" was written by someone we all know! He is Arthur Koestler of "The Thirteenth Tribe" fame. Actually he's much more famous for his many other books, than for these two. Thirteenth Tribe is way too political and Act of Creation is way too intellectual to be very popular.
...When things started out with Dr's ministry they were just a small church in a small town. Should the collateral books been cluttered up with footnotes in that setting? I’d say no. In those days Dr invited lots of guest teachers to wherever his headquarters was. They got credit that way. Dr showed his students Bullinger and Kenyon. There were no secrets about his sources.
But then the ministry started growing explosively around 1970, and as it started expanding out of its tiny family-size arena it started growing into the two similar arenas of the book market and the academy. Before 1972 Dr had Elena Whiteside record and quote him saying that he was NOT the originator of most of what he taught, but that mostly he had only “put it all together.”
It’s also the case that in addition to deciding by revelation what portions of other authors to include in his teachings, he also decided by revelation what portions of those SAME authors to NOT include. I’ve never seen a poster here consider this when urging Wierwille readers to search out all his sources. What a burdensome homework assignment to give to students. Only a few in the tail of the bell curve will want to do that kind of thorough work.
Also, as the ministry continued to grow in the 70s and into the 80s FOOTNOTES and accreditation were added to the new publications. A strong example is the credit given to Dr. Martin from Pasadena, the one who cracked the code to the star of Bethlehem. In Volume 5 is another memorable citation where Dr quoted a page or two from Kenyon with proper academic credits. Again, these developments are never included in the plagiarism discussions.
I said vp's unabashed plagiarism was one of a multitude of reasons why I would not recommend his books
another issue with that - is that - whether due to vp's incompetence or intentionally twisting others works - often his conclusions - or how it put it altogether was a gross distortion of what the original authors intended to say.
for instance in copying Bullinger's stuff one of the things vp misunderstood was understanding the various ways of how one can gather the meaning of a passage. Bullinger also stressed the reference in Peter that no prophecy of scripture is OF any private interpretation- refers to the origin of scripture and does not prohibit a person from attempting to interpret the verse for themselves; vp twisted that around to mean no one should attempt to interpret the Bible. I think his problem was that he was incompetent AND intentionally twisted scripture for his own agenda.
OldSkool, he did not claim it as his own. He stated the opposite in writing and on tape.
Many people THOUGHT he had originated it. I saw that as rampant in the many Wierwille worshipers which I observed and totally resisted all through the 70s and 80s. It wasn't until 1998 that I came to believe the books are exceptional.
But he claimed to NOT be the originator of most of it. I will find the passage where that is written. It may take some time. It is posted here at least 5 times.
for instance in copying Bullinger's stuff one of the things vp misunderstood was understanding the various ways of how one can gather the meaning of a passage. Bullinger also stressed the reference in Peter that no prophecy of scripture is OF any private interpretation- refers to the origin of scripture and does not prohibit a person from attempting to interpret the verse for themselves; vp twisted that around to mean no one should attempt to interpret the Bible. I think his problem was that he was incompetent AND intentionally twisted scripture for his own agenda.
I'm totally unfamiliar with your first item here: " ...the various ways of how one can gather the meaning of a passage..." Can you tell me where in Bullinger this occurs? Also, where Dr taught on it. I'm curious.
Your second item is familiar, but again I'm still unaware of most of it's details. I just never caught on to what the problem was. Oddly, this topic was handled by Ralph D in that feschrift book, and he took the position opposite yours. But I totally forget his points. I should look it up.
But if you can give me a little more detail than "refers to the origin of scripture and does not prohibit a person from attempting to interpret the verse for themselves; vp twisted that around to mean no one should attempt to interpret the Bible" ?? I always both VPW and Bullinger were referring to the need to avoid PRIVATE interpretation and to seek o the AUTHOR's interpretation. Surely, you're not saying Bullinger encouraged any old interpretation? I'm not sure what you are saying here, but it looks a little like you were saying that. I'm just trying to understand why this verse bothered so many people that Ralph had to write that article.
I had not seen that in years. I saved it for my collection.
What I find interesting is where Dr’s books are DIFFERENT from Styles.
Plus, RHST went through 7 editions, lots of places where it was changed again, and again. Sometimes that reflects learning on Dr’s part; sometimes it can mean the revelation changed as the situations changed.
Juedes got some wrong: Dr did mention those other authors, but not in the right locations and manners to satisfy the market and the academy. Dr credited those sources verbally to his students and sometimes they were on tape. I take it Juedes did not search all the SNS tapes for citations.
Mrs. Wierwille also got it wrong. He may not have told her about the 1942 promise until much later, and I can understand that. She resisted his revelations at times. In CF&S he said that when he started teaching that water baptism was out he had to sleep on the couch for a week or so.
But I know she was slightly wrong about the date. He told people as early as 1965, and probably earlier, just not her directly, maybe.
I have an old SNS tape from October 17, 1965 # 214Titled: “Selling Plurality – Acts.” In it is a very long parentheses, like a half hour, where he steps aside from the teaching and goes into the 1942 story and more. Many citations of Dr’s teachers and sources and methods are in this giant parenthesis. It sounds like this is not a “first time” revelation from Dr to his students.
Someone cut this parenthesis out in the 1980s and circulated it on cassette tape with the title “Light Began To Dawn.”I have quoted from that tape many times here.
His account if the 1942 incident is a tiny bit different from the account in TWLiL, but that’s to be expected from a decades old memory being verbally recalled. They do not contradict.
I'm totally unfamiliar with your first item here: " ...the various ways of how one can gather the meaning of a passage..." Can you tell me where in Bullinger this occurs? Also, where Dr taught on it. I'm curious.
Your second item is familiar, but again I'm still unaware of most of it's details. I just never caught on to what the problem was. Oddly, this topic was handled by Ralph D in that feschrift book, and he took the position opposite yours. But I totally forget his points. I should look it up.
But if you can give me a little more detail than "refers to the origin of scripture and does not prohibit a person from attempting to interpret the verse for themselves; vp twisted that around to mean no one should attempt to interpret the Bible" ?? I always both VPW and Bullinger were referring to the need to avoid PRIVATE interpretation and to seek o the AUTHOR's interpretation. Surely, you're not saying Bullinger encouraged any old interpretation? I'm not sure what you are saying here, but it looks a little like you were saying that. I'm just trying to understand why this verse bothered so many people that Ralph had to write that article.
look at page 188 of How to Enjoy the Bible by Bullinger - also i provided a link below where i referred to same reference on a doctrinal thread...
as far as vp's way of handling the interpretation of scripture - look at the PFAL the section on the Bible interprets itself. that goofy idea alone - that the bible interprets itself is laughable ! what an insult to intelligence....and totally nonsensical since we're talking about a book that was written in several different languages and spans an enormous time period, several cultures, etc.
Einstein, Heisenberg, Godel, Bullinger, and Ralph D all together. I'm including Ralph because I'm going to read his article in the feschrift.
I have spent all my life looking at those science giants you folks are discussing on that thread. One of my favorites is Godel. If you are into him at all, Douglas Hofsteadter completely revised and revamped his GEB on Godel in his newer "I Am A Strange Loop." I highly recommend it.
Yeah, I'm stymied, alright. Stymied by why you think an unrelated topic belongs on this thread. Start a new one or move on with the discussion at hand. .
waysider,
I discussed this with Rocky above. Here's a repeat:
On 5/29/2017 at 3:23 AM, Rocky said:
Did you forget where the doctrinal forum is? That's probably where you could get the attention of people who might be interested in engaging regarding those questions.
No, not forgotten, but I can be perfectly happy limiting my posting to the doctrinal forum, if that would help things go smoother here.
Like I said earlier, I’m not here to fight or recruit, just to say “Hi.”
That would also include catching up with the news, and cleaning up some loose ends if possible. I attempt to do the same thing with TWI about every 5 to 8 years, with varying results, sometimes not so bad.
The only reason I jumped on to this particular thread is because it’s right on topic with what I posted on most. Most of my posts have (or be working gradually towards) a strong theme of YES! We should by all means share Dr. Wierwille’s books with others. So, at least I’m on target with topic, and with a bull’s eye to boot!
Can this thread be moved into Doctrinal?
If not, should I start a new thread in Doctrinal?
I’m willing to cooperate. I’d love to see the same courtesy extended to me (try holding your nose) and allow me some thoughtful discussion, rather than just trying to nail me. Many of us have already been through 5 long years of that overly adversarial debate, and none of us want a repeat of what Oakspear called the Mike Wars.
You might find you have had some misunderstandings of my posting, and you might find that I can offer some good.
Plus, RHST went through 7 editions, lots of places where it was changed again, and again. Sometimes that reflects learning on Dr’s part; sometimes it can mean the revelation changed as the situations changed.
Wierwille, who was supposed to be a Dr., should have known better. All the excuses in the world doesnt make Wierwilles actions acceptable, he stole his ideas and presented them as his own.
Mind u, im not saying the content vpw stole was wrong, harmful, or totally inaccurate. Im simply saying that he was a plagiarist, amongst many othet things.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
110
64
43
37
Popular Days
Jun 4
69
Jun 1
51
Jun 5
33
Jun 7
32
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 110 posts
T-Bone 64 posts
waysider 43 posts
OldSkool 37 posts
Popular Days
Jun 4 2017
69 posts
Jun 1 2017
51 posts
Jun 5 2017
33 posts
Jun 7 2017
32 posts
Popular Posts
Steve Lortz
Greetings, ImLikeSoConfused! I would have responded to this thread sooner, but I had a heart attack on February 9th which landed me at the hospital DOA. The docs resuscitated me and I've spent th
Longhunter
I don't agree with a single word if this. Such a wild claim requires a big burden of proof. His theological claims are unsubstantiated, his Greek was lousy at best, and his Biblical studies were fra
WordWolf
He sounds a great deal like the last child of one that passed through here, the one that later claimed to be his own Dad posting here to support his own posts, sockpuppet style. The "making up stuff"
Posted Images
TLC
Didn't think that would be hard to figure out. If truth can be found and separated from whatever else is written, then whatever is written might be thought useful or profitable. How many other ways can the something like that be said?
Neither did I think that so difficult to be understood. My concern with giving any narrow example of it is that it might somehow limit or minimize the scope of its relevance or actual effect. Maybe I think it necessary to pray before eating, Maybe you don't. Maybe you think the essence of rightly dividing the word of truth necessitates knowing Greek and studying the etymology of each and every word in the verse. Maybe I think the essence of it necessitates knowing to whom it is written, In short, how or why any scripture is applicable (or is not applicable) to situations in life needs to be considered in light of when it is meant to apply, and not just in light of what is found written in the words of the verse.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Hey, Mike. Given the importance you felt in asking... where are you now?
Edited by TLCthe pic was a tad snarky. don't know what got into me... lol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yeah, I'm stymied, alright. Stymied by why you think an unrelated topic belongs on this thread. Start a new one or move on with the discussion at hand. .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
(i've included your original comments and my questions to provide context and hopefully clarity)
TLC: After all, to paraphrase an old saying, truth on the heel of the devil is still truth
T-Bone: how is that applicable here? or to put it another way, what are you referring to?
TLC: Didn't think that would be hard to figure out.
T-Bone: I’m sorry but when someone responds to an honest question in such a patronizing tone, that usually causes me to ramp up the scrutiny on the “words of wisdom” they’re about to bring forth. And so…
TLC: If truth can be found and separated from whatever else is written, then whatever is written might be thought useful or profitable. How many other ways can the something like that be said?
T-Bone: I fail to see how “truth on the heel of the devil is still truth” is equated with “If truth can be found and separated from whatever else is written, then whatever is written might be thought useful or profitable.”
The first phrase (truth of the heel of the devil… etc.) reminds me of something from a Rabbi’s essay – to accept the truth from whatever source it comes. This speaks to acceptance – which is an indication that you approve or believe in it. Hopefully the information has already been vetted by the one accepting it as truth – unless we’re talking about accepting something on blind faith. I think a lot of PFAL students did just that when they first got involved with TWI – they accepted everything vpw said as the truth. btw - being gullible is not a good thing - it never turns out good.
Whereas your second phrase (if truth can be found and separated from whatever… etc.) is talking about analysis – using critical thinking – having a goal in mind - to identify and verify a particular truth, fact, etc. ,as distinct from the rest of the material surrounding it, which may not be truthful, accurate or factual. This type of thinking is encouraged at Grease Spot.
This may seem tedious to mention at this point – but my questions concern the key issue on this thread – “is it ok to recommend vpw’s books?” that’s why I asked how is that applicable here – and what were you referring to? It seems there’s been a few posters on this thread who have had great difficulty applying critical thinking to vpw’s books and seem to accept it all on blind faith as being ok. or they talk like they've checked it all out, done lots of research on their own and know what's what...but often in discussing a particular issue they still use PFAL as the yardstick for vetting something...Just thought I’d bring that to everyone’s attention again – and I do appreciate you facilitating that.
TLC: …A more common (and often more damaging) failure resides in elevating one truth at the expense of some other truth.”
T-Bone: Care to elaborate on that – maybe an example or two.
TLC: Neither did I think that so difficult to be understood. My concern with giving any narrow example of it is that it might somehow limit or minimize the scope of its relevance or actual effect. Maybe I think it necessary to pray before eating, Maybe you don't. Maybe you think the essence of rightly dividing the word of truth necessitates knowing Greek and studying the etymology of each and every word in the verse. Maybe I think the essence of it necessitates knowing to whom it is written, In short, how or why any scripture is applicable (or is not applicable) to situations in life needs to be considered in light of when it is meant to apply, and not just in light of what is found written in the words of the verse.
T-Bone: disregarding your second attempt at a condescending tone, I would have to say your paragraph has nothing to do with elevating one truth at the expense of some other truth – but rather it speaks to the pros and cons of one method of analysis as compared to another – in your second example, studying the biblical Greek compared to studying the passage in light of the target audience – what did it mean to the original audience and what does it mean to us now - how should we apply it sort of a thing. I think a good approach is looking at something from all angles – the original languages, culture, context, historical, geographical, political, etc....I'm also of the opinion a passage can have more than one interpretation and that it's possible to abstract more than one principle to address several situations.
(btw your other reference to a personal preference to pray or not to pray before eating is irrelevant to this discussion)
Edited by T-Boneclarity and typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Yeah, well... we obviously see and speak on things differently, so please accept my apologies. I think I'll just bow out of the conversation and move on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Since there's no actual reason to think Uriah's family had any reason to suspect anything improper happened, it is logical to think that Uriah's relatives mourned his death in combat, and then thought that it was good that his widow was taken care of- whether out of genuine concern for her, or out of relief that they didn't have to see to it, depending on how nice his family was.
BTW, elevating vpw to the same status as David in discussions is, well.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Bingo. Bonus points for "why you think anyone here thinks you have something to offer on a topic of substance." After years of nothing but smoke and allusions alternating with correctable/corrected errors, and elevation of the pfal books beyond anything vpw said about them, in between worship of vpw, we're skeptical you've anything of substance to bring to the table NOW.
And if anyone's wondering what I meant by worship of vpw, I meant comments that he was "born with an overabundance of brains and brawn", that he was "overgifted" and that "where he walked, the earth shook." At that level, it is NOT hyperbole to call that "worship", at least "hero worship".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
After seeing some of this, I think that idle curiosity should be satisfied. One possible result of someone reading over vpw's books is thinking they replace the Bible and form God Almighty's revelation to us, thinking vpw was some superhuman, and seeing Jesus "many times" teaching from the Orange Book with it in his hand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, not forgotten, but I can be perfectly happy limiting my posting to the doctrinal forum, if that would help things go smoother here.
Like I said earlier, I’m not here to fight or recruit, just to say “Hi.”
That would also include catching up with the news, and cleaning up some loose ends if possible. I attempt to do the same thing with TWI about every 5 to 8 years, with varying results, sometimes not so bad.
The only reason I jumped on to this particular thread is because it’s right on topic with what I posted on most. Most of my posts have (or be working gradually towards) a strong theme of YES! We should by all means share Dr. Wierwille’s books with others. So, at least I’m on target with topic, and with a bull’s eye to boot!
Can this thread be moved into Doctrinal?
If not, should I start a new thread in Doctrinal?
I’m willing to cooperate. I’d love to see the same courtesy extended to me (try holding your nose) and allow me some thoughtful discussion, rather than just trying to nail me. Many of us have already been through 5 long years of that overly adversarial debate, and none of us want a repeat of what Oakspear called the Mike Wars.
You might find you have had some misunderstandings of my posting, and you might find that I can offer some good.
Peace.
PS - Rocky, this started out being addressed to you, but I drifted and started addressing everyone.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think this thread has been a thoughtful discussion by all participants; speaking for myself – Mike, please try not to let your imagination run wild or allow some persecution complex to distort what others have said. I believe in calling a spade a spade and so I’ll refer to something by its appropriate name. If I call vpw a plagiarist – which is true according to all literary and legal standards – except yours – please do not take that as a personal attack or that I’m trying to nail you.
Plagiarism is only one of a multitude of reasons why I don’t think it’s ok to recommend vpw’s books. “Is it ok to recommend wierwille’s books?” is the question that started this thread and folks have responded, giving reasons why they think it is ok or it’s not ok to recommend his books.
If you would like to draw an analogy with a target and bulls-eye – there should be two targets – one is the pros of recommending wierwille’s books and the other is the cons of recommending wierwille’s books. Honestly, I would have to say there have been a lot of bulls-eye shots on the cons target. Don’t see a whole lot happening on the pros target. Mike, check your ammunition – I think you’re firing blanks.
Edited by T-Boneneeded more time
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
T-Bone,
Please pardon my tendency to lump most posters together into one set of motivations and methods. I only remember the distinct personalities of a few posters compared to the whole roster, but I can slowly learn (or re-learn) to recognize those who want to discuss things thoroughly. I thank you for your response.
One of the things I often urge grads (at least 5 times here) to do, in order to get plagiarism into a more balanced light, is consider carefully three different areas of human thought and activity. These 3 types of common activity are the bookselling market, the academic community, and a small family of 2 parents and 4 children.
NOW, does anyone here remember this argument of mine?
I would not want to place the same requirements on that small family regarding intellectual ownership and how knowledge gets distributed. Would you? Parents have to put footnotes on what they teach their children? Not reasonable.
How about a much larger family of 4 sets of sibling parents and their 16 children? Would it be plagiarism to print out teachings and instructions to a large family like that? I’d still say no.
When things started out with Dr's ministry they were just a small church in a small town. Should the collateral books been cluttered up with footnotes in that setting? I’d say no. In those days Dr invited lots of guest teachers to wherever his headquarters was. They got credit that way. Dr showed his students Bullinger and Kenyon. There were no secrets about his sources.
But then the ministry started growing explosively around 1970, and as it started expanding out of its tiny family-size arena it started growing into the two similar arenas of the book market and the academy. Before 1972 Dr had Elena Whiteside record and quote him saying that he was NOT the originator of most of what he taught, but that mostly he had only “put it all together.”
It’s also the case that in addition to deciding by revelation what portions of other authors to include in his teachings, he also decided by revelation what portions of those SAME authors to NOT include. I’ve never seen a poster here consider this when urging Wierwille readers to search out all his sources. What a burdensome homework assignment to give to students. Only a few in the tail of the bell curve will want to do that kind of thorough work.
Also, as the ministry continued to grow in the 70s and into the 80s FOOTNOTES and accreditation were added to the new publications. A strong example is the credit given to Dr. Martin from Pasadena, the one who cracked the code to the star of Bethlehem. In Volume 5 is another memorable citation where Dr quoted a page or two from Kenyon with proper academic credits. Again, these developments are never included in the plagiarism discussions.
If anyone here has a GENUINE interest in original thought (like I know I do) there is a fabulous book on it that is now 50 years old, but I've never seen a better one. It's called "The Act of Creation" and it was written by a smart, world renown polymath. I think he was teaching for the Psychology Department at Harvard when he wrote this book.
It shows how creative thought happens in science, humor, art and literature, and it does it in GREAT detail.
I did some Open Mic stand-up comedy for about 5 years not too long ago. I had heard that comedy workshop classes sometimes use the techniques inspired by the mechanics of this very enlightening book on human creativity and originality. It worked for me.
Oh, and surprise,surprise! "The Act of Creation" was written by someone we all know! He is Arthur Koestler of "The Thirteenth Tribe" fame. Actually he's much more famous for his many other books, than for these two. Thirteenth Tribe is way too political and Act of Creation is way too intellectual to be very popular.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I said vp's unabashed plagiarism was one of a multitude of reasons why I would not recommend his books
another issue with that - is that - whether due to vp's incompetence or intentionally twisting others works - often his conclusions - or how it put it altogether was a gross distortion of what the original authors intended to say.
for instance in copying Bullinger's stuff one of the things vp misunderstood was understanding the various ways of how one can gather the meaning of a passage. Bullinger also stressed the reference in Peter that no prophecy of scripture is OF any private interpretation- refers to the origin of scripture and does not prohibit a person from attempting to interpret the verse for themselves; vp twisted that around to mean no one should attempt to interpret the Bible. I think his problem was that he was incompetent AND intentionally twisted scripture for his own agenda.
Edited by T-BoneNeeded more time
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
TLC,
I remember. One point at a time is all I can handle.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Mike - vp was a fraud who stole other's work and claimed it as his own. He was a plagiarist. Thats just wrong...period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
OldSkool, he did not claim it as his own. He stated the opposite in writing and on tape.
Many people THOUGHT he had originated it. I saw that as rampant in the many Wierwille worshipers which I observed and totally resisted all through the 70s and 80s. It wasn't until 1998 that I came to believe the books are exceptional.
But he claimed to NOT be the originator of most of it. I will find the passage where that is written. It may take some time. It is posted here at least 5 times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'm totally unfamiliar with your first item here: " ...the various ways of how one can gather the meaning of a passage..." Can you tell me where in Bullinger this occurs? Also, where Dr taught on it. I'm curious.
Your second item is familiar, but again I'm still unaware of most of it's details. I just never caught on to what the problem was. Oddly, this topic was handled by Ralph D in that feschrift book, and he took the position opposite yours. But I totally forget his points. I should look it up.
But if you can give me a little more detail than "refers to the origin of scripture and does not prohibit a person from attempting to interpret the verse for themselves; vp twisted that around to mean no one should attempt to interpret the Bible" ?? I always both VPW and Bullinger were referring to the need to avoid PRIVATE interpretation and to seek o the AUTHOR's interpretation. Surely, you're not saying Bullinger encouraged any old interpretation? I'm not sure what you are saying here, but it looks a little like you were saying that. I'm just trying to understand why this verse bothered so many people that Ralph had to write that article.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stolenrthst.htm
Im sure you remember Dr. John Juedes side by side comparisons?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"I can't quite hear you, could you come a little closer?" - The Fox to the Gingerbread Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
OldSkool,
I had not seen that in years. I saved it for my collection.
What I find interesting is where Dr’s books are DIFFERENT from Styles.
Plus, RHST went through 7 editions, lots of places where it was changed again, and again. Sometimes that reflects learning on Dr’s part; sometimes it can mean the revelation changed as the situations changed.
Juedes got some wrong: Dr did mention those other authors, but not in the right locations and manners to satisfy the market and the academy. Dr credited those sources verbally to his students and sometimes they were on tape. I take it Juedes did not search all the SNS tapes for citations.
Mrs. Wierwille also got it wrong. He may not have told her about the 1942 promise until much later, and I can understand that. She resisted his revelations at times. In CF&S he said that when he started teaching that water baptism was out he had to sleep on the couch for a week or so.
But I know she was slightly wrong about the date. He told people as early as 1965, and probably earlier, just not her directly, maybe.
I have an old SNS tape from October 17, 1965 # 214 Titled: “Selling Plurality – Acts.” In it is a very long parentheses, like a half hour, where he steps aside from the teaching and goes into the 1942 story and more. Many citations of Dr’s teachers and sources and methods are in this giant parenthesis. It sounds like this is not a “first time” revelation from Dr to his students.
Someone cut this parenthesis out in the 1980s and circulated it on cassette tape with the title “Light Began To Dawn.” I have quoted from that tape many times here.
His account if the 1942 incident is a tiny bit different from the account in TWLiL, but that’s to be expected from a decades old memory being verbally recalled. They do not contradict.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
look at page 188 of How to Enjoy the Bible by Bullinger - also i provided a link below where i referred to same reference on a doctrinal thread...
as far as vp's way of handling the interpretation of scripture - look at the PFAL the section on the Bible interprets itself. that goofy idea alone - that the bible interprets itself is laughable !
what an insult to intelligence....and totally nonsensical since we're talking about a book that was written in several different languages and spans an enormous time period, several cultures, etc.
link to doctrinal thread where i quoted from Bullinger
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
HOLY MACKEREL! That's a wild thread.
Einstein, Heisenberg, Godel, Bullinger, and Ralph D all together. I'm including Ralph because I'm going to read his article in the feschrift.
I have spent all my life looking at those science giants you folks are discussing on that thread. One of my favorites is Godel. If you are into him at all, Douglas Hofsteadter completely revised and revamped his GEB on Godel in his newer "I Am A Strange Loop." I highly recommend it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
waysider,
I discussed this with Rocky above. Here's a repeat:
No, not forgotten, but I can be perfectly happy limiting my posting to the doctrinal forum, if that would help things go smoother here.
Like I said earlier, I’m not here to fight or recruit, just to say “Hi.”
That would also include catching up with the news, and cleaning up some loose ends if possible. I attempt to do the same thing with TWI about every 5 to 8 years, with varying results, sometimes not so bad.
The only reason I jumped on to this particular thread is because it’s right on topic with what I posted on most. Most of my posts have (or be working gradually towards) a strong theme of YES! We should by all means share Dr. Wierwille’s books with others. So, at least I’m on target with topic, and with a bull’s eye to boot!
Can this thread be moved into Doctrinal?
If not, should I start a new thread in Doctrinal?
I’m willing to cooperate. I’d love to see the same courtesy extended to me (try holding your nose) and allow me some thoughtful discussion, rather than just trying to nail me. Many of us have already been through 5 long years of that overly adversarial debate, and none of us want a repeat of what Oakspear called the Mike Wars.
You might find you have had some misunderstandings of my posting, and you might find that I can offer some good.
Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
it's festschrift.
(figured someone should correct it after the second misspelling...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Maan. It's simple.
http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/what-is-plagiarism
Wierwille, who was supposed to be a Dr., should have known better. All the excuses in the world doesnt make Wierwilles actions acceptable, he stole his ideas and presented them as his own.
Mind u, im not saying the content vpw stole was wrong, harmful, or totally inaccurate. Im simply saying that he was a plagiarist, amongst many othet things.
Edited by OldSkoolLink 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.