Mike, I am sorry to rain on your parade and I also apologize to anyone if my initial response to Mike’s post caused some confusion or seemed uncharacteristic of my usual passion for good Bible study methods.
So, you liked my loosey-goosey approach, but not the specifics I chose in my approach.
I can live with that.
I hope you and others are able to remember that I said this MVB was mainly for my own personal study. I am not trying to publish or distribute what I have worked there.I was offering it as an example of how we can come up with our own versions, since versions are devoid of authority, anyway.But maybe some have forgotten that.
I find it odd, though how you and the others take offence at such simple substitutions I chose for how Paul initially taught them.These are simple associations I see when I read Acts in the KJV. I see Paul having taught them a lot when he first stayed with the Corinthians. I see them as students.There is another place in Acts where he spent 3 weeks teaching, and in the good old days lots of teachers identified that as LIKE the class which took us 3 weeks.
But let’s look at the non-trivial items that are in the text I posted, that so far, have eluded posters here so far.
The reason I went to work on this chapter is because of the “No Smoking” verse that is in it.
Here is the KJV rendering:
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
It’s that last verse that always was a thorn for me.It is used by religious people to condemn cigarette smokers, which BTW I never did.I felt sorry for smokers though, and I thought it odd how loving and tender the verses before it were, and then did a schizophrenic switch in verse 17.
In verse 15 we can see that a sinning man will be rescued, but then it turns around with fresh condemnation in verse 17 “…him shall God destroy.”
Did that ever bother you in the KJV?It sure bothered me, and I finally got the answer, and not from VPW interestingly.
I thought surely some posters here had wrestled with those difficult verses, and they would have noticed how I handled them.But, no.Everyone was more interested in finding offence in the trivial substitutions I used.There’s an opening line in “Evita” that comes to my mind:
Oh what a circus, oh what a show
Argentina has gone to town
Over the death of an actress called Eva Peron
We've all gone crazy
Mourning all day and mourning all night
Falling over ourselves to get all of the misery right
LoL!So everyone got “properly offended” with me but missed the main point of me posting that.I wanted to show how well we can smooth out difficult sections for our personal study.
Here is how I handled the difficult verse.
This cleansing fire will do the job,
and the fire shall test every man’s work
of what quality it is.
If any man’s work survives where he has built,
he will feel richly rewarded.
If any man’s work shall be burned up,
he shall suffer serious losses!
HOWEVER! He himself shall be rescued!
He will be cleaned up by this cleansing fire.
Don’t forget that you are the temple of God,
and that pneuma hagion from God dwells inside you!
If any man cheats in building the temple of God,
this cheating shall God’s fire destroy, for the temple of God is holy,
which temple you ARE!
I believe there are Critical Greek texts that back me up in this non-trivial rendering.
Like a person being difficult and a person being clear, or not difficult
Thanks again Mike. You didn't let the verses interpret themselves, gave your private interpretation, and now I have a new phrase to get all worked up about.
LoL!So everyone got “properly offended” with me but missed the main point of me posting that.I wanted to show how well we can smooth out difficult sections for our personal study.
I'll see your LOL and raise you double that
you think THAT shows how well YOU can smooth out difficult sections for your personal study!
Ha ! I believe YOUR standards leave a lot to be desired.
Has it ever occurred to you that you use PFAL as a measuring stick to verify the accuracy and logic of PFAL. (Hint: it’s wierwille-centric)
…reminds me of the baloney I bought into when I first took PFAL – that claim about explaining apparent Bible contradictions…wierwille did a sloppy job of that! Because there ARE difficult…contradictory…erroneous sections of the Bible…wierwille’s spiel of “God has a purpose for everything He says in the Bible, where He says it, how He says it blah, blah, blah” does NOT jive with what the Bible…in any translation…in any existing manuscript shows – that there ARE difficult, contradictory, and erroneous sections.
in other words, if indeed God purposely had everything worded exactly the way He wanted - then He is not as intelligent as we thought - He made contradictory statements, He gave inaccurate historical details, He made scientifically inaccurate statements.
I prefer to deal honestly with Scripture – warts and all. What is so hard to grasp about that? God inspired humans – imperfect people to write Scripture; I believe God allowed them to use their own literary style, vocabulary, worldview and limited knowledge to express His message…You use a similar argument about PFAL being God-breathed plagiarism even though wierwille is not perfect.
What you do in your PERSONAL study is up to you…and I prefer you keep your weird interpolations to yourself…
…in all your protesting it seems like you’re now trying to further cover up a hidden agenda by minimizing your recent interpolation which forwards your usual PFAL schtick.
I prefer to deal honestly with Scripture – warts and all. What is so hard to grasp about that?
Actually, I did do that with the "no smoking" verse. It was from the Interlinear Greek that I got the key word fix. I also consulted with a few Greek people. The word "him" in the Greek should be translated "this" and then it makes sense with other scriptures. I alluded to this at the end of my post.
*/*/*/*/*
No, I don't use written PFAL to judge other sections of PFAL. But I do judge tapes from VPW the light of the final written publications.
If there were portions of written PFAL that contradicted each other, this would emerge from use. Similarly, had Euclid made a mistake in his selection of Postulates, then things would start falling apart that were built on Geometry.
No, I don't use written PFAL to judge other sections of PFAL. But I do judge tapes from VPW the light of the final written publications.
If there were portions of written PFAL that contradicted each other, this would emerge from use. Similarly, had Euclid made a mistake in his selection of Postulates, then things would start falling apart that were built on Geometry.
Yeah I’ve noticed that too – and there does seem to be new errors and contradictions in PFAL emerging all the time, the more PFAL is discussed by clear thinking folks…a recent case in point is a thread in Doctrinal started by Bolshevik – where my post examined the nonsensical claim that wierwille said of Scripture interprets itself…I said:
“Scripture interprets itself” is nonsensical – it implies no other agency is needed.
Consider some definitions from the internet for interpret, translate and interpreter:
Interpret: explain the meaning of information, words, or actions; translate orally or into sign language the words of a person speaking a different language.
Translate: express the sense of (words or text) in another language; to express in more comprehensible terms: EXPLAIN, INTERPRET.
An interpreter is responsible for facilitating communication between different language speakers by translating information from one language to another for easy comprehension.
~ ~ ~ ~
Note in all of the above there is an intermediary or go-between involved - a person who acts as a link between people of different languages. In a sense translators of the ancient biblical manuscripts are bridging the gap between the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek and the modern languages of various cultures like English, Spanish, French, etc.
I believe the phrase “scripture interprets itself” is something wierwille erroneously bastardized from Bullinger’s works. In Bullinger’s “How to Enjoy the Bible” the idea is expressed along the lines of “these are the keys to interpreting the Bible, paying attention to the verse, context, previous usage, etc.” It’s a given that a human’s cognitive skills are involved rather than expecting inanimate words on a page to do the job. In other words what Bullinger was saying is "To do it properly and logically this is how YOU should interpret the Bible". That's a big difference from the befuddling nonsense that wierwille was teaching (seehere)
end of quoting my post in doctrinal
~ ~ ~ ~
Move over Euclid and tell wierwille the news
his postulates are screwy his sycophants have the blues
Nobody is interested in discussing it with you, probably because your motives for bringing it up are suspect. That's without any discussion back and forth, since it seems pretty obvious this wasn't about genuine curiosity about the Bible. We've read the verses, we've come to our own conclusions, and at the moment, none of us trust your motives enough to discuss them with you. This really shouldn't surprise you by now.
I Cor 3:17 God chose the figure of speech personification in an extended allegory here. OT times people had a building associated with worship. The new gospel of Jesus Christ has the collective group as personifying worship of God.
When Christians gather it is something God loves, it is kind of like He is saying enjoy each other that’s the worship I want. Not all the Towers of Babel man constructs.
If there were portions of written PFAL that contradicted each other, this would emerge from use. Similarly, had Euclid made a mistake in his selection of Postulates, then things would start falling apart that were built on Geometry.
It is almost impossible to overstate how much this reeks of bullcrap.
I'll be gentle:
If Euclidian geometry were wrong on one point, Euclidian geometry would be perfectly content to remove that one point and salvage all the others.
This is not true of PFAL and God's Word. By PFAL's standard, if the wrong pronoun is used in the wrong place, the entire word of God falls to pieces. Nothing in Euclidian geometry makes that kind of assertion about the whole of geometry.
Further, let's dispense with the intelligence-insulting conditional "if" in your opening sentence. We produced more than 30 such contradictions and errors, even after handicapping ourselves with a ludicrously generous definition of "error," and for you to come here 20 years later and say "IF there are contradictions" is such a craptacular crapfest of crappy crap that it needs to be flushed before toilet paper is applied because no septic or sewage system could handle the volume.
By the way, to avoid an allegation of plagiarism, the old poster Mr. PMosh gets partial credit for the preceding paragraph.
If PFAL were God-breathed, it would be correct about the characteristics of the God-breathed Word. And if it were God-breathed and therefore correct about the characteristics of the God-breathed Word, it would share those characteristics.
It doesn't. We've demonstrated it time and again. In 20 years, you have not adequately addressed a single demonstrated error/contradiction. You just pretend they don't exist. Dodge. Distract. Deny. Never admit an error is an error.
It's dishonest handling of "The Word" and it would insult our intelligence if it were possible for us to think any lesser of your tactics.
I'm really tired of hearing scripture used to threaten people. It's insanity. If anyone is even close to understanding 1 Corinthians, they would know better.
Vpw contradicted everything he taught. In the same classes and books.
While teaching that it's Christ in you, he contradicts saying that Christ is not present now but will return at a later day. Teaching one spirit and then the giver and gift which is two, not one. Teaches eternal life but denies the resurrection. Teaches one body but splits everyone into categories of his own choosing.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
65
72
161
71
Popular Days
May 28
50
Apr 30
49
May 2
41
May 10
37
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 65 posts
waysider 72 posts
Bolshevik 161 posts
Nathan_Jr 71 posts
Popular Days
May 28 2022
50 posts
Apr 30 2022
49 posts
May 2 2022
41 posts
May 10 2022
37 posts
Popular Posts
Bolshevik
Scripture, The Bible, is not *a* language. "It interprets itself", though.
T-Bone
Excerpts from the first draft for a totally revised burnt orange book “Power For Materialistic Living Today”, page 3, Introduction: The Materialistic Life …This post literally changed my life. My
Raf
It is almost impossible to overstate how much this reeks of bullcrap. I'll be gentle: If Euclidian geometry were wrong on one point, Euclidian geometry would be perfectly content to remove
Posted Images
Mike
So, you liked my loosey-goosey approach, but not the specifics I chose in my approach.
I can live with that.
I hope you and others are able to remember that I said this MVB was mainly for my own personal study. I am not trying to publish or distribute what I have worked there. I was offering it as an example of how we can come up with our own versions, since versions are devoid of authority, anyway. But maybe some have forgotten that.
I find it odd, though how you and the others take offence at such simple substitutions I chose for how Paul initially taught them. These are simple associations I see when I read Acts in the KJV. I see Paul having taught them a lot when he first stayed with the Corinthians. I see them as students. There is another place in Acts where he spent 3 weeks teaching, and in the good old days lots of teachers identified that as LIKE the class which took us 3 weeks.
But let’s look at the non-trivial items that are in the text I posted, that so far, have eluded posters here so far.
The reason I went to work on this chapter is because of the “No Smoking” verse that is in it.
Here is the KJV rendering:
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
It’s that last verse that always was a thorn for me. It is used by religious people to condemn cigarette smokers, which BTW I never did. I felt sorry for smokers though, and I thought it odd how loving and tender the verses before it were, and then did a schizophrenic switch in verse 17.
In verse 15 we can see that a sinning man will be rescued, but then it turns around with fresh condemnation in verse 17 “…him shall God destroy.”
Did that ever bother you in the KJV? It sure bothered me, and I finally got the answer, and not from VPW interestingly.
I thought surely some posters here had wrestled with those difficult verses, and they would have noticed how I handled them. But, no. Everyone was more interested in finding offence in the trivial substitutions I used. There’s an opening line in “Evita” that comes to my mind:
Oh what a circus, oh what a show
Argentina has gone to town
Over the death of an actress called Eva Peron
We've all gone crazy
Mourning all day and mourning all night
Falling over ourselves to get all of the misery right
LoL! So everyone got “properly offended” with me but missed the main point of me posting that. I wanted to show how well we can smooth out difficult sections for our personal study.
Here is how I handled the difficult verse.
This cleansing fire will do the job,
and the fire shall test every man’s work
of what quality it is.
If any man’s work survives where he has built,
he will feel richly rewarded.
If any man’s work shall be burned up,
he shall suffer serious losses!
HOWEVER!
He himself shall be rescued!
He will be cleaned up by this cleansing fire.
Don’t forget that you are the temple of God,
and that pneuma hagion from God dwells inside you!
If any man cheats in building the temple of God,
this cheating shall God’s fire destroy,
for the temple of God is holy,
which temple you ARE!
I believe there are Critical Greek texts that back me up in this non-trivial rendering.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
*difficult verses
Difficult verse in light of a clear verse
Like a person being difficult and a person being clear, or not difficult
Thanks again Mike. You didn't let the verses interpret themselves, gave your private interpretation, and now I have a new phrase to get all worked up about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I'll see your LOL and raise you double that
you think THAT shows how well YOU can smooth out difficult sections for your personal study!
Ha ! I believe YOUR standards leave a lot to be desired.
Has it ever occurred to you that you use PFAL as a measuring stick to verify the accuracy and logic of PFAL. (Hint: it’s wierwille-centric)
…reminds me of the baloney I bought into when I first took PFAL – that claim about explaining apparent Bible contradictions…wierwille did a sloppy job of that! Because there ARE difficult…contradictory…erroneous sections of the Bible…wierwille’s spiel of “God has a purpose for everything He says in the Bible, where He says it, how He says it blah, blah, blah” does NOT jive with what the Bible…in any translation…in any existing manuscript shows – that there ARE difficult, contradictory, and erroneous sections.
in other words, if indeed God purposely had everything worded exactly the way He wanted - then He is not as intelligent as we thought - He made contradictory statements, He gave inaccurate historical details, He made scientifically inaccurate statements.
I prefer to deal honestly with Scripture – warts and all. What is so hard to grasp about that? God inspired humans – imperfect people to write Scripture; I believe God allowed them to use their own literary style, vocabulary, worldview and limited knowledge to express His message…You use a similar argument about PFAL being God-breathed plagiarism
even though wierwille is not perfect.
What you do in your PERSONAL study is up to you…and I prefer you keep your weird interpolations to yourself…
Edited by T-Bone…in all your protesting it seems like you’re now trying to further cover up a hidden agenda by minimizing your recent interpolation which forwards your usual PFAL schtick.
Revision of the LOL sound track
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Actually, I did do that with the "no smoking" verse. It was from the Interlinear Greek that I got the key word fix. I also consulted with a few Greek people. The word "him" in the Greek should be translated "this" and then it makes sense with other scriptures. I alluded to this at the end of my post.
*/*/*/*/*
No, I don't use written PFAL to judge other sections of PFAL. But I do judge tapes from VPW the light of the final written publications.
If there were portions of written PFAL that contradicted each other, this would emerge from use. Similarly, had Euclid made a mistake in his selection of Postulates, then things would start falling apart that were built on Geometry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Annnd . . . . . Soooo . . . . .
Did they interpret themselves?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yeah I’ve noticed that too
– and there does seem to be new errors and contradictions in PFAL emerging all the time, the more PFAL is discussed by clear thinking folks…a recent case in point is a thread in Doctrinal started by Bolshevik – where my post examined the nonsensical claim that wierwille said of Scripture interprets itself…I said:
“Scripture interprets itself” is nonsensical – it implies no other agency is needed.
Consider some definitions from the internet for interpret, translate and interpreter:
Interpret: explain the meaning of information, words, or actions; translate orally or into sign language the words of a person speaking a different language.
Translate: express the sense of (words or text) in another language; to express in more comprehensible terms: EXPLAIN, INTERPRET.
An interpreter is responsible for facilitating communication between different language speakers by translating information from one language to another for easy comprehension.
~ ~ ~ ~
Note in all of the above there is an intermediary or go-between involved - a person who acts as a link between people of different languages. In a sense translators of the ancient biblical manuscripts are bridging the gap between the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek and the modern languages of various cultures like English, Spanish, French, etc.
I believe the phrase “scripture interprets itself” is something wierwille erroneously bastardized from Bullinger’s works. In Bullinger’s “How to Enjoy the Bible” the idea is expressed along the lines of “these are the keys to interpreting the Bible, paying attention to the verse, context, previous usage, etc.” It’s a given that a human’s cognitive skills are involved rather than expecting inanimate words on a page to do the job. In other words what Bullinger was saying is "To do it properly and logically this is how YOU should interpret the Bible". That's a big difference from the befuddling nonsense that wierwille was teaching (see here )
end of quoting my post in doctrinal
~ ~ ~ ~
Move over Euclid and tell wierwille the news
his postulates are screwy his sycophants have the blues
Edited by T-Bonedo posts edit themselves?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Uh huh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Oh wow - that's a big difference....judge certain works of VPW by using other works of VPW. of course, why didn't I think of that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
When it doesn't fit you've got to MAKE it fit. Force that hand into that self-interpreting glove. You've got to WORK that word into that glove!
(Insert OJ courtroom glove meme)
Well, just bless your little hearts. If only you could read it in the original where scripture always interprets itself if you make it fit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"It just sits there like a duck."
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I see no one has much interest in understanding Paul and 1 Cor chapter 3.
That is such a WONDERFUL chapter now, without that one terribly translated word.
Did anyone ever read that chapter? That verse 17 is a real ringer in the KJV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
No, you're probably the first.
Seriously?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Typically, I lose interest when I sense manipulative tactics...and there are far less mischievous resources for checking out Scripture:
I Corinthians 3:17 alternate translations
Interlinear of I Corinthians 3:17
I Corinthians 3 and you can choose a translation
you're welcome!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
So far, no one has indicated any curiosity about verse 17, and no one offered an explanation. How did you handle that verse in its context?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Again, we come to Mike suggesting we need to cater to his direction on how discussion is to be conducted at gsc.
Take a hint. If no one is interested in your point or your question, oh well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Nobody is interested in discussing it with you, probably because your motives for bringing it up are suspect. That's without any discussion back and forth, since it seems pretty obvious this wasn't about genuine curiosity about the Bible. We've read the verses, we've come to our own conclusions, and at the moment, none of us trust your motives enough to discuss them with you. This really shouldn't surprise you by now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I Cor 3:17 God chose the figure of speech personification in an extended allegory here. OT times people had a building associated with worship. The new gospel of Jesus Christ has the collective group as personifying worship of God.
When Christians gather it is something God loves, it is kind of like He is saying enjoy each other that’s the worship I want. Not all the Towers of Babel man constructs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That answer is flat and empty.
I am SO THANKFUL, that when I was struggling with that verse as a young babe in the Bible, there was someone who had the right answer for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It is almost impossible to overstate how much this reeks of bullcrap.
I'll be gentle:
If Euclidian geometry were wrong on one point, Euclidian geometry would be perfectly content to remove that one point and salvage all the others.
This is not true of PFAL and God's Word. By PFAL's standard, if the wrong pronoun is used in the wrong place, the entire word of God falls to pieces. Nothing in Euclidian geometry makes that kind of assertion about the whole of geometry.
Further, let's dispense with the intelligence-insulting conditional "if" in your opening sentence. We produced more than 30 such contradictions and errors, even after handicapping ourselves with a ludicrously generous definition of "error," and for you to come here 20 years later and say "IF there are contradictions" is such a craptacular crapfest of crappy crap that it needs to be flushed before toilet paper is applied because no septic or sewage system could handle the volume.
By the way, to avoid an allegation of plagiarism, the old poster Mr. PMosh gets partial credit for the preceding paragraph.
If PFAL were God-breathed, it would be correct about the characteristics of the God-breathed Word. And if it were God-breathed and therefore correct about the characteristics of the God-breathed Word, it would share those characteristics.
It doesn't. We've demonstrated it time and again. In 20 years, you have not adequately addressed a single demonstrated error/contradiction. You just pretend they don't exist. Dodge. Distract. Deny. Never admit an error is an error.
It's dishonest handling of "The Word" and it would insult our intelligence if it were possible for us to think any lesser of your tactics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I'm really tired of hearing scripture used to threaten people. It's insanity. If anyone is even close to understanding 1 Corinthians, they would know better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You are thankful for being spoon-fed.
That's what that someone wanted, was people willing to be spoon-fed. To be predictable. To be controllable.
You are thankful to give up your autonomy.
Imagine a democracy with people like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Amen to that!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Vpw contradicted everything he taught. In the same classes and books.
While teaching that it's Christ in you, he contradicts saying that Christ is not present now but will return at a later day. Teaching one spirit and then the giver and gift which is two, not one. Teaches eternal life but denies the resurrection. Teaches one body but splits everyone into categories of his own choosing.
Edited by cmanbecause I can
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.