No doubt JJ never thought he'd still be making these videos contra'ing VPW, after all these years.
As well as showing the copies of the books plagiarised by VPW, it might have been useful if JJ had recommended one or two deeper (but not too deep) theological tomes by reputable writers, since he mentions that VPW's writings are not only plagiarised, but shallow, sloppy, subbed, stolen, etc. Too many ex-Wayfers have no idea where to start looking, if they want more info, or want to study or think for themselves, and find it difficult to accept, let alone analyse, the content of non-Way materials.
Anyway, well done John, for sticking with it all these years.
The thing is, while some of the people who were leaders in twi at some point are still alive, this can be necessary because some of them are spreading lies. A generation later, this becomes a lesser problem but still exists. This "vpw said" business carries weight if people think vpw was an exceptional Christian rather than the lying, lukewarm dirtbag he actually was. A few people are still teaching their kids this, but this problem self-corrects over time, with the numbers of adherents to the vpw delusion decreasing exponentially. Worldwide, now, the numbers are tiny, and they drop further every decade, and eventually will just be a handful of adults scattered around the USA who were taught that vpw was some Superman and to shun other Christians. Either they'll die out completely, or they'll discover the truth and drift away from vpw apologetics. I mean, we've had vpw apologists here before. Some have died due to old age, and at least one joined a mainstream religion that vpw used to badmouth. The process has been going on for decades, and will continue. I don't know if there will ever be a time with ZERO wierwillists, but it's not ridiculous to imagine it will be down to less than one living-room full before I pass away from old age.
BTW, beginning thinkers don't need JJ to recommend something weighty and logical. They need something simple and clear. They need years to work up to "scholarly."
The thing is, while some of the people who were leaders in twi at some point are still alive, this can be necessary because some of them are spreading lies. A generation later, this becomes a lesser problem but still exists. This "vpw said" business carries weight if people think vpw was an exceptional Christian rather than the lying, lukewarm dirtbag he actually was. A few people are still teaching their kids this, but this problem self-corrects over time, with the numbers of adherents to the vpw delusion decreasing exponentially. Worldwide, now, the numbers are tiny, and they drop further every decade, and eventually will just be a handful of adults scattered around the USA who were taught that vpw was some Superman and to shun other Christians. Either they'll die out completely, or they'll discover the truth and drift away from vpw apologetics. I mean, we've had vpw apologists here before. Some have died due to old age, and at least one joined a mainstream religion that vpw used to badmouth. The process has been going on for decades, and will continue. I don't know if there will ever be a time with ZERO wierwillists, but it's not ridiculous to imagine it will be down to less than one living-room full before I pass away from old age.
BTW, beginning thinkers don't need JJ to recommend something weighty and logical. They need something simple and clear. They need years to work up to "scholarly."
Charlene’s post made me think of how vic finagled the finances for his “Aramaic Interlinear and Concordance”. Most of the financing came from “designated gifts” from Bud Reahard, Bo’s father. These gifts were “above and beyond” Bud’s “regular ABS”, according to what Bo told me. Bud was the International Operations Mgr. for Eli Lily Corp at the time. The Reahard family had been involved with Eli Lily from it’s founding, as Bud’s father was there at the beginning. Bo told me that the total of the “designated gifts” Bud gave for the Aramaic Interlinear project came to $140,000. Bud’s giving was genuine. He very much believed in the project because Bo was so invested in it and spoke about it to his father often. But I don’t think Bud ever knew that all the giving yielded a product that was largely bent to wierwille’s “Word” rather than to what the “research” and all those man-hours put into it actually found. That’s where the “research” rubber always hit the road for Walter. Whatever wierwille WANTED “The Word” to say, it was Walter and the team’s job to “find him a text” to prove it. That’s the ethical dilemma Charlene so aptly describes in her book. It’s what produced that unbearable cognitive dissonance that so many team members faced.
i have no idea what Bo’s opinion of the the thing is today. He doesn’t talk to me anymore because I have confronted him publicly on his FB page regarding his current rabid dominionist “Christian” views, and the radical right-wing political views it produces, as evidenced by the almost daily long-winded “prayers” he posts on political issues in the same King James English “thus saith the Lord” huff’n’puff and blow your house down wierwille condescending style that the offshoots and splinters love so much. Makes them feel like they’re right back in the BRC! LOL!
i’ve never really investigated how the thing was received by the biblical research and textual criticism folks at the academic and university levels. I wonder if anyone outside TWIt or the splinters and offshoots even uses it?? Anyone know?
DWBH wrote: "I’ve never really investigated how the thing was received by the biblical research and textual criticism folks at the academic and university levels. I wonder if anyone outside TWIt or the splinters and offshoots even uses it?? Anyone know?"
I recall that the Society of Biblical Literature knew the concordance was published in 1985 because some of the guys on the research team had been attending SBL meetings and talking about it to SBL members over the years. I do not know how it was actually received by those academics, or whether it is used by anyone today, including anyone at TWI HQ or in offshoots. Wish I could be more helpful.
i’ve never really investigated how the thing was received by the biblical research and textual criticism folks at the academic and university levels. I wonder if anyone outside TWIt or the splinters and offshoots even uses it?? Anyone know?
I have no idea on how it was received. IIRC, circa 1980 or so IBM was working on the lightweight Selectric "ball" or 'typing element" with that alphabet. Then the PC came out circa 1982 and bye bye you wonderful Selectric you.
I just looked. It seems that many Academics like it, though they are aware of it's origins, and that old "Father, Father, for this purpose was I....." was translated per vpw in Piffle.
DETOUR:
RE: Dominionist Theology: what a CROCK of poo-poo. If those Dominionists are in charge in anything in this future Kingdom they speak of (Millenial Kingdom) or get any authority, then I will tell Jesus personally to count me OUT! I will stay outside those walls. Rhema Words??? Good gravy....even further out on the edge of the Bell curve than twi. Speak the Words of God from your Spirit, and it will come into being. These words are special Rhema words....not Logos words...huh? The more of us who do it then the more effect it has. Hence, IMHO, that's why one can see this on FB and the like. I had respect for these folks at one time. Great respect the folks that now believe that crap and even "suggest" that believers names might be written in the Stars, too. And, maybe even learn what your Ministries are if you run your birthdate on our little program....for a fee...levels I- III. Guess who owns the Program? Another quietly uses this Program as a way to help one recognize and free-up your Ministry areas. Each level up, more detail, more bucks. Not much....but, why?
More Ethelbert taken as Gospel. And, thanks, all you Dominionists, for creating another Class struggle, as you use your superior wealth and connections to influence OUR Country and World politics so that all will comply and submit to you, and more, in His Holy Name. I thank you for showing me publicly your true thoughts and loving ideas- DOMINION over us all....in Love, of course! For Him, most certainly indeed. Bunk.
the Academic section offers more thorough studies in the areas of Biblical languages, theology, Biblical studies, apologetics, church history, theological dictionaries, theological encyclopedias, etc.
For those of you who can’t afford more classes and books, or just vomit at the thought, there are a number of folks who do lots of really excellent and academically legitimate work in and with Syriac language textual criticism of New Testament scripture. Bob Wassung in CT comes to mind.
Don’t let his affiliation with Jalvis’ TLTF confuse you. Bob has a genuine and impressive background in the study of Syriac. He has published numerous articles and runs an online independent study group for those interested.
Our good friend Penworks also knows some of the old Syriac/Aramaic legitimate researchers from the days she worked with them in the Research Team of the mid 1980s.
If your interest in Syriac is profound and you desire to seriously study it and understand it linguistically, then, imho, books and classes as recommended by our friend johnj above are an excellent starting point. But, if you just want to understand how Vic, and Walter manipulated the Aramaic Dept. and bullied Bernita Jess and her copse Aramaic assistants in the Research Dept., then you might even be able to find enough right here in the GSC archives to give you all the accurate info you need. Whatever you choose, enjoy!
Or, for something completely different along these lines, there's a very compelling argument for doing away with bible study altogether in a "shocking" book called The End of Biblical Studies (gasp!) by Hector Avalos, PhD. Prometheus Books. 2007.
Just sayin … there is an alternative viewpoint for those interested in questioning the value of continuing to hammer away at biblical texts in hopes of recreating "the original." Even if we did reach that goal, what would we have? A text that still contains contradictions (four different viewpoints in the 4 gospels), violence against "unbelievers," in the Hebrew Bible, condemnation of homosexuals, subjugation of women, etc.
Just sayin … let's take a look at bibliolatry and get honest about that. Perhaps this is a topic for the Doctrinal thread. Sigh …
Or, for something completely different along these lines, there's a very compelling argument for doing away with bible study altogether in a "shocking" book called The End of Biblical Studies (gasp!) by Hector Avalos, PhD. Prometheus Books. 2007.
Just sayin … there is an alternative viewpoint for those interested in questioning the value of continuing to hammer away at biblical texts in hopes of recreating "the original." Even if we did reach that goal, what would we have? A text that still contains contradictions (four different viewpoints in the 4 gospels), violence against "unbelievers," in the Hebrew Bible, condemnation of homosexuals, subjugation of women, etc.
Just sayin … let's take a look at bibliolatry and get honest about that. Perhaps this is a topic for the Doctrinal thread. Sigh …
Penworks suggested this would be a fitting topic for the Doctrinal forum. While I can heartily agree with such a sentiment. I believe this is very fitting and appropriate in About the Way because Victor Wierwille's entire enterprise was built around bibliolatry.
Bibliolatry (from the Greek βιβλίον biblion, "book" and the suffix -λατρία -latria, "worship")[1][2] is the worship of a book, idolatrous homage to a book, or the deifying of a book.[3][4][5] It is a form of idolatry.[4] The sacred texts of some religions disallow icon worship, but over time the texts themselves are treated as sacred the way idols are, and believers may end up effectively worshipping the book.[6] Bibliolatry extends claims of inerrancy—hence perfection—to the texts, precluding theological innovation, evolving development, or progress.[6][7] Bibliolatry can lead to revivalism, disallows re-probation, and can lead to persecution of unpopular doctrines.[7]
Historically, Christianity has never endorsed worship of the Bible, reserving worship for God. Some Christians believe that biblical authority derives from God as the inspiration of the text, not from the text itself.[8] The term "bibliolatry" does not refer to a recognized belief, but theological discussion may use the word pejoratively to label the perceived practices of opponents.[9] Opponents may apply the term "bibliolatry" to groups such as Protestants of a fundamentalist and evangelical background, such as the King James Only movement, who espouse biblical inerrancy and a sola scriptura approach (scripture as the only divine authority).[10]
****
Has anyone here ever heard or read the phrase "The Word of God is the Will of God?"
2 My son, if you accept my words
and store up my commands within you,
2 turning your ear to wisdom
and applying your heart to understanding—
3 indeed, if you call out for insight
and cry aloud for understanding,
4 and if you look for it as for silver
and search for it as for hidden treasure,
5 then you will understand the fear of the Lord
and find the knowledge of God.
I'm not going to tell you I have THE answer or answers. I don't. But these five verses have become my favorite scripture passage.
Where are you going to find God's written Word, outside the collaterals, where if is understandable?
Jesus lined himself up with the written Word, and that was not idolatry.
Not a guess. It actually is a ridiculous extension of bibliolatry.
I just re watched JJs video. Man he has some fantastic logic- like:
1. If you take out Bullinger Stiles and Leonard’s material from RHST there would be almost nothing left.
2. Shallowness of collaterals - they all were transcribed sermons - tape 295 lol. JJ compared VPWs shallow writings with Kittels handling of scriptures.
3. They support his “find me a text to support what my interpretation of this scripture is “ method of research.
Really great video. Comprehensive.
Regardless of how offended watchers get as he said.
I think your “where”? question is more rhetorical as each individual is responsible to seek out and prove truth for themselves.
With the bibliolatry topic it is really interesting that the Greek word for “scribe” in the Bible is “grammateis” or grammatician.
Jesus confronted them as opposed to joining in their endless meaningless philosophical debates.
He taught with authority not like those scribes. He had simple clear direct logic:
Not a guess. It actually is a ridiculous extension of bibliolatry.
I just re watched JJs video. Man he has some fantastic logic- like:
1. If you take out Bullinger Stiles and Leonard’s material from RHST there would be almost nothing left.
2. Shallowness of collaterals - they all were transcribed sermons - tape 295 lol. JJ compared VPWs shallow writings with Kittels handling of scriptures.
3. They support his “find me a text to support what my interpretation of this scripture is “ method of research.
Really great video. Comprehensive.
Regardless of how offended watchers get as he said.
The Juedes videos are excellent, succinct, and so… so… accurate.
To your points:
1. Bullinger, Stiles and Leonard have their own problems, and what little is left after removing them is the worst of the worst. The invented bullshonta, baseless PI, and illogical fantasies are all that remain.
2. As Charlene has documented, the transcribers were pulling their hair out cleaning up the abject error and stupidity of the recorded “sermons.” In spite of these efforts the collaterals remain rife with error and illogic.
3. This “method” is so devoid of integrity, all that can be said is, Mmmmph.
I tried reading my first Bible in 1970 but got nowhere.
A year later my first Bible understanding of any sort happened in my first twig fellowship.
The collaterals inspired me to read my Bible,
AND showed me lots of tips on HOW.
They also showed me WHERE to read in my Bible.
Because I had heard "Jesus Part One - His Earthly Ministry" all my life in the RC church, teachings like "Jesus Part Two - His Heavenly Ministry" were very valuable tips I got from the collaterals.
I had never heard most of the accounts in Acts, and the Part Two Jesus shows up three times there.
I had never heard anything of the Epistles except mere CLIPPINGS that would be read in church with no context or teaching provided.
I tried reading my first Bible in 1970 but got nowhere.
That in itself is questionable because it's written in plain English
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Thanks for the tip,
but I'm already hip
to it .
I tried reading my first Bible in 1970 but got nowhere.
A year later my first Bible understanding of any sort happened in my first twig fellowship.
The collaterals inspired me to read my Bible,
AND showed me lots of tips on HOW.
They also showed me WHERE to read in my Bible.
Because I had heard "Jesus Part One - His Earthly Ministry" all my life in the RC church, teachings like "Jesus Part Two - His Heavenly Ministry" were very valuable tips I got from the collaterals.
I had never heard most of the accounts in Acts, and the Part Two Jesus shows up three times there.
I had never heard anything of the Epistles except mere CLIPPINGS that would be read in church with no context or teaching provided.
I received deliverance of all things Wierwille...your letting a false prophet define scripture for you.
The collaterals inspired me to read my Bible,
AND showed me lots of tips on HOW.
They also showed me WHERE to read in my Bible.
A noble but still fallacious argument. Doesn't justify bibliolatry.
Where in Proverbs 2:1-5 does it limit the search or quest to the Bible for knowledge, understanding or Godly wisdom to the Bible or Victor Wierwille's more contemporary version of bibliolatry?
That is, even if Prov 2:1-5 is taken as a or the foundation for the quest?
Clearly, Mike, you've seemingly demonstrated curiosity and perhaps some intellectual acuity to expand your knowledge in this life. However, it's readily apparent (from more than two decades of your engagement w/GSC) that you have genuine blinders keeping you from expanding that search into religion/theology or any other way to characterize "the things of God."
Not a guess. It actually is a ridiculous extension of bibliolatry.
I just re watched JJs video. Man he has some fantastic logic- like:
1. If you take out Bullinger Stiles and Leonard’s material from RHST there would be almost nothing left.
2. Shallowness of collaterals - they all were transcribed sermons - tape 295 lol. JJ compared VPWs shallow writings with Kittels handling of scriptures.
3. They support his “find me a text to support what my interpretation of this scripture is “ method of research.
Really great video. Comprehensive.
Regardless of how offended watchers get as he said.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
52
50
37
Popular Days
Jul 31
87
Jul 27
47
Aug 4
36
Aug 5
34
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 61 posts
Mike 52 posts
OldSkool 50 posts
Nathan_Jr 37 posts
Popular Days
Jul 31 2023
87 posts
Jul 27 2023
47 posts
Aug 4 2023
36 posts
Aug 5 2023
34 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
Or, for something completely different along these lines, there's a very compelling argument for doing away with bible study altogether in a "shocking" book called The End of Biblical Studies (gasp!)
waysider
The sound of irony is deafening.
OldSkool
I dont see jeering and chatter I saw you completely shut down because you were confronted with uncomfortable truths that you are smart enough to recognize but deluded enough to rationalize them away.
Posted Images
Twinky
No doubt JJ never thought he'd still be making these videos contra'ing VPW, after all these years.
As well as showing the copies of the books plagiarised by VPW, it might have been useful if JJ had recommended one or two deeper (but not too deep) theological tomes by reputable writers, since he mentions that VPW's writings are not only plagiarised, but shallow, sloppy, subbed, stolen, etc. Too many ex-Wayfers have no idea where to start looking, if they want more info, or want to study or think for themselves, and find it difficult to accept, let alone analyse, the content of non-Way materials.
Anyway, well done John, for sticking with it all these years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The thing is, while some of the people who were leaders in twi at some point are still alive, this can be necessary because some of them are spreading lies. A generation later, this becomes a lesser problem but still exists. This "vpw said" business carries weight if people think vpw was an exceptional Christian rather than the lying, lukewarm dirtbag he actually was. A few people are still teaching their kids this, but this problem self-corrects over time, with the numbers of adherents to the vpw delusion decreasing exponentially. Worldwide, now, the numbers are tiny, and they drop further every decade, and eventually will just be a handful of adults scattered around the USA who were taught that vpw was some Superman and to shun other Christians. Either they'll die out completely, or they'll discover the truth and drift away from vpw apologetics. I mean, we've had vpw apologists here before. Some have died due to old age, and at least one joined a mainstream religion that vpw used to badmouth. The process has been going on for decades, and will continue. I don't know if there will ever be a time with ZERO wierwillists, but it's not ridiculous to imagine it will be down to less than one living-room full before I pass away from old age.
BTW, beginning thinkers don't need JJ to recommend something weighty and logical. They need something simple and clear. They need years to work up to "scholarly."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
That all makes sense to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
P.S. Rocky posted in the Doctrinal section a link to another video Juedes made about TWI's Aramaic project, which I worked on in part.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Charlene’s post made me think of how vic finagled the finances for his “Aramaic Interlinear and Concordance”. Most of the financing came from “designated gifts” from Bud Reahard, Bo’s father. These gifts were “above and beyond” Bud’s “regular ABS”, according to what Bo told me. Bud was the International Operations Mgr. for Eli Lily Corp at the time. The Reahard family had been involved with Eli Lily from it’s founding, as Bud’s father was there at the beginning. Bo told me that the total of the “designated gifts” Bud gave for the Aramaic Interlinear project came to $140,000. Bud’s giving was genuine. He very much believed in the project because Bo was so invested in it and spoke about it to his father often. But I don’t think Bud ever knew that all the giving yielded a product that was largely bent to wierwille’s “Word” rather than to what the “research” and all those man-hours put into it actually found. That’s where the “research” rubber always hit the road for Walter. Whatever wierwille WANTED “The Word” to say, it was Walter and the team’s job to “find him a text” to prove it. That’s the ethical dilemma Charlene so aptly describes in her book. It’s what produced that unbearable cognitive dissonance that so many team members faced.
i have no idea what Bo’s opinion of the the thing is today. He doesn’t talk to me anymore because I have confronted him publicly on his FB page regarding his current rabid dominionist “Christian” views, and the radical right-wing political views it produces, as evidenced by the almost daily long-winded “prayers” he posts on political issues in the same King James English “thus saith the Lord” huff’n’puff and blow your house down wierwille condescending style that the offshoots and splinters love so much. Makes them feel like they’re right back in the BRC! LOL!
i’ve never really investigated how the thing was received by the biblical research and textual criticism folks at the academic and university levels. I wonder if anyone outside TWIt or the splinters and offshoots even uses it?? Anyone know?
Edited by DontWorryBeHappyLink to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
DWBH wrote: "I’ve never really investigated how the thing was received by the biblical research and textual criticism folks at the academic and university levels. I wonder if anyone outside TWIt or the splinters and offshoots even uses it?? Anyone know?"
I recall that the Society of Biblical Literature knew the concordance was published in 1985 because some of the guys on the research team had been attending SBL meetings and talking about it to SBL members over the years. I do not know how it was actually received by those academics, or whether it is used by anyone today, including anyone at TWI HQ or in offshoots. Wish I could be more helpful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
engine
I have no idea on how it was received. IIRC, circa 1980 or so IBM was working on the lightweight Selectric "ball" or 'typing element" with that alphabet. Then the PC came out circa 1982 and bye bye you wonderful Selectric you.
I just looked. It seems that many Academics like it, though they are aware of it's origins, and that old "Father, Father, for this purpose was I....." was translated per vpw in Piffle.
DETOUR:
RE: Dominionist Theology: what a CROCK of poo-poo. If those Dominionists are in charge in anything in this future Kingdom they speak of (Millenial Kingdom) or get any authority, then I will tell Jesus personally to count me OUT! I will stay outside those walls. Rhema Words??? Good gravy....even further out on the edge of the Bell curve than twi. Speak the Words of God from your Spirit, and it will come into being. These words are special Rhema words....not Logos words...huh? The more of us who do it then the more effect it has. Hence, IMHO, that's why one can see this on FB and the like. I had respect for these folks at one time. Great respect the folks that now believe that crap and even "suggest" that believers names might be written in the Stars, too. And, maybe even learn what your Ministries are if you run your birthdate on our little program....for a fee...levels I- III. Guess who owns the Program? Another quietly uses this Program as a way to help one recognize and free-up your Ministry areas. Each level up, more detail, more bucks. Not much....but, why?
More Ethelbert taken as Gospel. And, thanks, all you Dominionists, for creating another Class struggle, as you use your superior wealth and connections to influence OUR Country and World politics so that all will comply and submit to you, and more, in His Holy Name. I thank you for showing me publicly your true thoughts and loving ideas- DOMINION over us all....in Love, of course! For Him, most certainly indeed. Bunk.
Go reread the Gospels, please and thank you!
Back to the thread.
Edited by engineLink to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
someone asked about more thorough theological books. A place to begin is the "academic" section of christianbook.com
Bible Reference Tools: Handbook, Atlas, Dictionary - Christianbook.com
the Academic section offers more thorough studies in the areas of Biblical languages, theology, Biblical studies, apologetics, church history, theological dictionaries, theological encyclopedias, etc.
Basics of Classical Syriac Video Lectures: A Complete Course for the Beginner: Steven C. Hallam: 9780310535171 - Christianbook.com
23 session DVD class on basics of Syriac. This page has a 19 minute video segment on the alphabet you can view
There is a matching book. The class is $70, class and book package is $94
In certain categories you can refine the book search by searching for semi-technical or technical level books
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Greasespotters:
For those of you who can’t afford more classes and books, or just vomit at the thought, there are a number of folks who do lots of really excellent and academically legitimate work in and with Syriac language textual criticism of New Testament scripture. Bob Wassung in CT comes to mind.
Don’t let his affiliation with Jalvis’ TLTF confuse you. Bob has a genuine and impressive background in the study of Syriac. He has published numerous articles and runs an online independent study group for those interested.
Our good friend Penworks also knows some of the old Syriac/Aramaic legitimate researchers from the days she worked with them in the Research Team of the mid 1980s.
If your interest in Syriac is profound and you desire to seriously study it and understand it linguistically, then, imho, books and classes as recommended by our friend johnj above are an excellent starting point. But, if you just want to understand how Vic, and Walter manipulated the Aramaic Dept. and bullied Bernita Jess and her copse Aramaic assistants in the Research Dept., then you might even be able to find enough right here in the GSC archives to give you all the accurate info you need. Whatever you choose, enjoy!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Also look into University of Chicago which has been studying Aramaic/Syriac manuscripts since the 1970's
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Or, for something completely different along these lines, there's a very compelling argument for doing away with bible study altogether in a "shocking" book called The End of Biblical Studies (gasp!) by Hector Avalos, PhD. Prometheus Books. 2007.
Just sayin … there is an alternative viewpoint for those interested in questioning the value of continuing to hammer away at biblical texts in hopes of recreating "the original." Even if we did reach that goal, what would we have? A text that still contains contradictions (four different viewpoints in the 4 gospels), violence against "unbelievers," in the Hebrew Bible, condemnation of homosexuals, subjugation of women, etc.
Just sayin … let's take a look at bibliolatry and get honest about that. Perhaps this is a topic for the Doctrinal thread. Sigh …
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Penworks suggested this would be a fitting topic for the Doctrinal forum. While I can heartily agree with such a sentiment. I believe this is very fitting and appropriate in About the Way because Victor Wierwille's entire enterprise was built around bibliolatry.
Bibliolatry (from the Greek βιβλίον biblion, "book" and the suffix -λατρία -latria, "worship")[1][2] is the worship of a book, idolatrous homage to a book, or the deifying of a book.[3][4][5] It is a form of idolatry.[4] The sacred texts of some religions disallow icon worship, but over time the texts themselves are treated as sacred the way idols are, and believers may end up effectively worshipping the book.[6] Bibliolatry extends claims of inerrancy—hence perfection—to the texts, precluding theological innovation, evolving development, or progress.[6][7] Bibliolatry can lead to revivalism, disallows re-probation, and can lead to persecution of unpopular doctrines.[7]
Historically, Christianity has never endorsed worship of the Bible, reserving worship for God. Some Christians believe that biblical authority derives from God as the inspiration of the text, not from the text itself.[8] The term "bibliolatry" does not refer to a recognized belief, but theological discussion may use the word pejoratively to label the perceived practices of opponents.[9] Opponents may apply the term "bibliolatry" to groups such as Protestants of a fundamentalist and evangelical background, such as the King James Only movement, who espouse biblical inerrancy and a sola scriptura approach (scripture as the only divine authority).[10]
****
Has anyone here ever heard or read the phrase "The Word of God is the Will of God?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Moral Benefits of Wisdom
2 My son, if you accept my words
and store up my commands within you,
2 turning your ear to wisdom
and applying your heart to understanding—
3 indeed, if you call out for insight
and cry aloud for understanding,
4 and if you look for it as for silver
and search for it as for hidden treasure,
5 then you will understand the fear of the Lord
and find the knowledge of God.
I'm not going to tell you I have THE answer or answers. I don't. But these five verses have become my favorite scripture passage.
However, there might be some legit insight in the power of unlearning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I’m guessing “collateralolatry” would also be a problematic similar term?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Bad guess.
God's Word is as much God as God is God.
Where are you going to find God's written Word, outside the collaterals, where if is understandable?
Jesus lined himself up with the written Word, and that was not idolatry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Try reading a Bible
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
“Now people will listen to me.”
Probably got that vp quote wrong. Someone knows. A little help?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
“Where are you going to find God's written Word, outside the collaterals, where it is understandable?“
This problem merely appears to be difficult, but the math is simple:
Edited by Nathan_JrYourWalk+TheBible+ChristInYou+YourBelieving =
Gloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Not a guess. It actually is a ridiculous extension of bibliolatry.
I just re watched JJs video. Man he has some fantastic logic- like:
1. If you take out Bullinger Stiles and Leonard’s material from RHST there would be almost nothing left.
2. Shallowness of collaterals - they all were transcribed sermons - tape 295 lol. JJ compared VPWs shallow writings with Kittels handling of scriptures.
3. They support his “find me a text to support what my interpretation of this scripture is “ method of research.
Really great video. Comprehensive.
Regardless of how offended watchers get as he said.
I think your “where”? question is more rhetorical as each individual is responsible to seek out and prove truth for themselves.
With the bibliolatry topic it is really interesting that the Greek word for “scribe” in the Bible is “grammateis” or grammatician.
Jesus confronted them as opposed to joining in their endless meaningless philosophical debates.
He taught with authority not like those scribes. He had simple clear direct logic:
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The Juedes videos are excellent, succinct, and so… so… accurate.
To your points:
1. Bullinger, Stiles and Leonard have their own problems, and what little is left after removing them is the worst of the worst. The invented bullshonta, baseless PI, and illogical fantasies are all that remain.
2. As Charlene has documented, the transcribers were pulling their hair out cleaning up the abject error and stupidity of the recorded “sermons.” In spite of these efforts the collaterals remain rife with error and illogic.
3. This “method” is so devoid of integrity, all that can be said is, Mmmmph.
Edited by Nathan_JrGloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks for the tip,
but I'm already hip
to it .
I tried reading my first Bible in 1970 but got nowhere.
A year later my first Bible understanding of any sort happened in my first twig fellowship.
The collaterals inspired me to read my Bible,
AND showed me lots of tips on HOW.
They also showed me WHERE to read in my Bible.
Because I had heard "Jesus Part One - His Earthly Ministry" all my life in the RC church, teachings like "Jesus Part Two - His Heavenly Ministry" were very valuable tips I got from the collaterals.
I had never heard most of the accounts in Acts, and the Part Two Jesus shows up three times there.
I had never heard anything of the Epistles except mere CLIPPINGS that would be read in church with no context or teaching provided.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
That in itself is questionable because it's written in plain English
I received deliverance of all things Wierwille...your letting a false prophet define scripture for you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
A noble but still fallacious argument. Doesn't justify bibliolatry.
Where in Proverbs 2:1-5 does it limit the search or quest to the Bible for knowledge, understanding or Godly wisdom to the Bible or Victor Wierwille's more contemporary version of bibliolatry?
That is, even if Prov 2:1-5 is taken as a or the foundation for the quest?
Clearly, Mike, you've seemingly demonstrated curiosity and perhaps some intellectual acuity to expand your knowledge in this life. However, it's readily apparent (from more than two decades of your engagement w/GSC) that you have genuine blinders keeping you from expanding that search into religion/theology or any other way to characterize "the things of God."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Wonderful reflections.
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.