“Scripture interprets itself” is nonsensical – it implies no other agency is needed.
The Word. The Word. Nothing but the Word.
Your mentioning of agency reminds me of the Law of Believing, where God is lacking in the whole agency department.
I forgot exactly how PFAL was laid out. But, the "scripture" in "scripture interprets itself" could be a means to subtley introduce the Word taking the place of the absent Christ.
Not just that but the use of "The Word" as VPW's god. His personal superego in Fruedian terms.
Edited by Bolshevik Thumbs, thumbs, nothing but thumbs
Not only does scripture interpret itself, it writes itself and reads itself.
Similarly, poetry interprets itself, writes itself and reads itself. Or, art interprets itself, paints itself, views itself. See?
Isn't that just wonderful!! Bless your little hearts. I wish you could read it in the original.
Yes!
I was thinking of how some things have multiple meanings . . . or can be viewed multiple ways . . . and none those ways are wrong. Art and Poetry would be examples.
DNA is naturally occurring information. It does not interpret itself. Mistakes in replication are made, mutations occur, and intentional genetic variation occurs at multiple levels. Molecular systems are in place to fix some of the mistakes as well. Good luck identifying what it all looked like in the original, though.
One situation that irritated me was the Retemories involving kids. Claim a verse about a kid, Eph 6:1 or Proverbs 22:6 and BOOM, kid's decisions are made for them. Someone claims a verse, another person's life is controlled.
The verse interprets itself . . . no need to question it . . . everyone's hands are tied. Anyone claiming a verse is free of all responsibility of the outcome. Because it's not privately interpreted.
Nonsense phrases are not nonsense. They are a tool for control.
"Scripture interprets itself" could act as an anchoring phrase.
Something to kept in mind if a person , . . I mean a scripture . . . Gets difficult
An anchor phrase.... genius....
Like when you can't remember the fictional character who told you about a first century "bastard bar mitzvah".... scripture interprets itself.
Or when you read a metaphor from Paul's letters back into Genesis - the trees are people!!.....scripture interprets itself.
Or when, as a doctor, you have to spell instead of pronounce the Greek after "researching" 18 hours a day for forty years.....scripture interprets itself.
Or when you'd rather move verses and chapters around in Genesis to form fit your opinion instead of doing honest spirit-led exegesis......scripture interprets itself.
Or whenever you encounter a preposition or conjunction, and your opinion is on the line.....scripture interprets itself.
Or when you need 2 to actually mean 4 because of an 18th century cemetery and a flat earth...... scripture interprets itself.
To me the hilarious thing in all of this is that the verse in question [knowing this first] has nothing at all to do with interpreting the scripture. That's a bad translation. Wierwille comes SO CLOSE to revealing this, but it would undermine his larger point, so he lets the bad translation stand instead of out and out correcting it.
However, if you apply the keys to How the Bible Interprets Itself, you're left to conclude that this verse does not illustrate what PFAL uses it to illustrate. This verse is talking about the ORIGIN of scripture, not about the reader trying to understand it.
So the whole doctrine of "private interpretation" is misleading. The Bible never says to avoid it [because it's the world's least necessary instruction. You never saw Stan Lee worrying about people privately interpreting Spider-Man. The Bible assumes its meaning to be clear, and the section of II Peter 1 containing this instruction is telling its readers that "we" [I no longer include myself in that pronoun, so, y'all] are not following cleverly devised fables dreamed up by man, but real doctrines revealed by God.
That is, of course, if you still believe Peter wrote II Peter, but that's another can of worms and off-topic here. Here we assume for the sake of this discussion that Peter wrote his epistles, and we discuss accordingly. In that vein, Peter was not talking about the meaning of scripture. He was discussing its origin.
. . . In that vein, Peter was not talking about the meaning of scripture. He was discussing its origin.
I agree.
As a piece of literature, and therefore art, the Bible is an expression of/by many people throughout time. No singular voice expresses what it attempts.
As an NPD, VPW was incapable of that thought. His lens had to force all thoughts through a singular mold.
26Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.”
27So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopianeunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (which means “queen of the Ethiopians”). This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship,
28and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah the prophet.
29The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”
30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
According to Acts, someone must explain the scriptures, so the scriptures do not intrepret themselves.
26Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.”
27So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopianeunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (which means “queen of the Ethiopians”). This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship,
28and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah the prophet.
29The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”
30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
According to Acts, someone must explain the scriptures, so the scriptures do not intrepret themselves.
I can’t wait for someone to declare thay are in different administrations. Haha
26Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.”
27So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopianeunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (which means “queen of the Ethiopians”). This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship,
28and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah the prophet.
29The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”
30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
According to Acts, someone must explain the scriptures, so the scriptures do not intrepret themselves.
I forgot about this. So sinister. It was one of many used against me as a proof text for why I couldn't possibly understand unless I was "taught." The phrase "How can you learn unless you've been taught" was used constantly. And who will be the teacher? The leader who was taught by vic paul who revealed St. Paul who revealed Christ who revealed God.
Maybe, once you are taught how (spelled: H-O-W), then the scriptures interpret themselves.
All (without exception or distinction) cults absolutely love to "teach."
To me the hilarious thing in all of this is that the verse in question [knowing this first] has nothing at all to do with interpreting the scripture. That's a bad translation. Wierwille comes SO CLOSE to revealing this, but it would undermine his larger point, so he lets the bad translation stand instead of out and out correcting it.
However, if you apply the keys to How the Bible Interprets Itself, you're left to conclude that this verse does not illustrate what PFAL uses it to illustrate. This verse is talking about the ORIGIN of scripture, not about the reader trying to understand it.
So the whole doctrine of "private interpretation" is misleading. The Bible never says to avoid it [because it's the world's least necessary instruction. You never saw Stan Lee worrying about people privately interpreting Spider-Man. The Bible assumes its meaning to be clear, and the section of II Peter 1 containing this instruction is telling its readers that "we" [I no longer include myself in that pronoun, so, y'all] are not following cleverly devised fables dreamed up by man, but real doctrines revealed by God.
That is, of course, if you still believe Peter wrote II Peter, but that's another can of worms and off-topic here. Here we assume for the sake of this discussion that Peter wrote his epistles, and we discuss accordingly. In that vein, Peter was not talking about the meaning of scripture. He was discussing its origin.
The "origin" of scripture was likely verbal, not written. If that's what's being pointed to.
One of the reasons believed to have caused the shrinking of the human brain over the past 3000 years is written communication. These matters used to be memorized. As information is written down, less brains are needed. You can imagine how the internet will accelerate this process.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
12
58
12
Popular Days
May 2
25
May 11
14
May 13
14
May 16
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 9 posts
waysider 12 posts
Bolshevik 58 posts
Nathan_Jr 12 posts
Popular Days
May 2 2022
25 posts
May 11 2022
14 posts
May 13 2022
14 posts
May 16 2022
14 posts
Popular Posts
Nathan_Jr
Not only does scripture interpret itself, it writes itself and reads itself. Similarly, poetry interprets itself, writes itself and reads itself. Or, art interprets itself, paints itself, views i
Bolshevik
"Scripture Interprets Itself" - I don't know what this means. If I need something interpreted, it's because it's written in a language I don't understand. Or written in code. Soooo . . . . t
T-Bone
“Scripture interprets itself” is nonsensical – it implies no other agency is needed. Consider some definitions from the internet for interpret, translate and interpreter: Interpret: ex
Posted Images
Twinky
This is precisely why Mike and his bloody "Easter eggs" that "doctor" hid in his various books annoys me so much.
Who the h3ll needs to hide "God's secrets" when God himself wants to reveal them to us and so states, very plainly, very many times?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The Word. The Word. Nothing but the Word.
Your mentioning of agency reminds me of the Law of Believing, where God is lacking in the whole agency department.
I forgot exactly how PFAL was laid out. But, the "scripture" in "scripture interprets itself" could be a means to subtley introduce the Word taking the place of the absent Christ.
Not just that but the use of "The Word" as VPW's god. His personal superego in Fruedian terms.
Edited by BolshevikThumbs, thumbs, nothing but thumbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Not only does scripture interpret itself, it writes itself and reads itself.
Similarly, poetry interprets itself, writes itself and reads itself. Or, art interprets itself, paints itself, views itself. See?
Isn't that just wonderful!! Bless your little hearts. I wish you could read it in the original.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Now that PFAL has replaced it, you no longer need to read it in the original.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yes!
I was thinking of how some things have multiple meanings . . . or can be viewed multiple ways . . . and none those ways are wrong. Art and Poetry would be examples.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
DNA is naturally occurring information. It does not interpret itself. Mistakes in replication are made, mutations occur, and intentional genetic variation occurs at multiple levels. Molecular systems are in place to fix some of the mistakes as well. Good luck identifying what it all looked like in the original, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Textual redactions redact themselves, interpolations interpolate themselves, engravings on silver bracelets engrave themselves, prepositions pre position themselves...
BULL$HIT
Obviously, scripture does NOT and can NOT interpret itself - because it's SCRIPTURE!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Maybe that's what retemories are for. Repeat, repetition. Verse . . . over and over and over and over and over and over.
If you gaze long enough into scripture . . eventually . . . Scripture stares back
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Retemories... now there's a great jargon word. Does it interpret itself? Does anyone outside TWI have a clue what it means?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You're supposed to apply each verse to situations in life . . . . . . . Life situation comes up . . . pull a card and throw it at the problem
You gotta catch them all . . . because you gotta catch 'em all . . . because . . . you gotta catch 'em all . . . because
If you throw a card at a situation and it fails . . . YOU threw the WRONG card.
The Word. The Word. Nothing but The Word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
One situation that irritated me was the Retemories involving kids. Claim a verse about a kid, Eph 6:1 or Proverbs 22:6 and BOOM, kid's decisions are made for them. Someone claims a verse, another person's life is controlled.
The verse interprets itself . . . no need to question it . . . everyone's hands are tied. Anyone claiming a verse is free of all responsibility of the outcome. Because it's not privately interpreted.
Nonsense phrases are not nonsense. They are a tool for control.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"Scripture interprets itself" could act as an anchoring phrase.
Something to kept in mind if a person , . . I mean a scripture . . . Gets difficult
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
An anchor phrase.... genius....
Like when you can't remember the fictional character who told you about a first century "bastard bar mitzvah".... scripture interprets itself.
Or when you read a metaphor from Paul's letters back into Genesis - the trees are people!!.....scripture interprets itself.
Or when, as a doctor, you have to spell instead of pronounce the Greek after "researching" 18 hours a day for forty years.....scripture interprets itself.
Or when you'd rather move verses and chapters around in Genesis to form fit your opinion instead of doing honest spirit-led exegesis......scripture interprets itself.
Or whenever you encounter a preposition or conjunction, and your opinion is on the line.....scripture interprets itself.
Or when you need 2 to actually mean 4 because of an 18th century cemetery and a flat earth...... scripture interprets itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
To me the hilarious thing in all of this is that the verse in question [knowing this first] has nothing at all to do with interpreting the scripture. That's a bad translation. Wierwille comes SO CLOSE to revealing this, but it would undermine his larger point, so he lets the bad translation stand instead of out and out correcting it.
However, if you apply the keys to How the Bible Interprets Itself, you're left to conclude that this verse does not illustrate what PFAL uses it to illustrate. This verse is talking about the ORIGIN of scripture, not about the reader trying to understand it.
So the whole doctrine of "private interpretation" is misleading. The Bible never says to avoid it [because it's the world's least necessary instruction. You never saw Stan Lee worrying about people privately interpreting Spider-Man. The Bible assumes its meaning to be clear, and the section of II Peter 1 containing this instruction is telling its readers that "we" [I no longer include myself in that pronoun, so, y'all] are not following cleverly devised fables dreamed up by man, but real doctrines revealed by God.
That is, of course, if you still believe Peter wrote II Peter, but that's another can of worms and off-topic here. Here we assume for the sake of this discussion that Peter wrote his epistles, and we discuss accordingly. In that vein, Peter was not talking about the meaning of scripture. He was discussing its origin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I agree.
As a piece of literature, and therefore art, the Bible is an expression of/by many people throughout time. No singular voice expresses what it attempts.
As an NPD, VPW was incapable of that thought. His lens had to force all thoughts through a singular mold.
Edited by BolshevikThumbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Who can square II Peter with Acts 8:26-31?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
I can’t wait for someone to declare thay are in different administrations. Haha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
If you need someone to explain it to you, just write to:
The Teacher
Box 328
New Knockwurst, Ohio
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I think others have already said the scripture exists alongside living humans.
Suggesting a book be read as a closed system induces a maddening myopia.
Outside of The Way I think there is a history as why this happens, but that is politics.
VPW had a different need entirely. And it wasn't to free anyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I forgot about this. So sinister. It was one of many used against me as a proof text for why I couldn't possibly understand unless I was "taught." The phrase "How can you learn unless you've been taught" was used constantly. And who will be the teacher? The leader who was taught by vic paul who revealed St. Paul who revealed Christ who revealed God.
Maybe, once you are taught how (spelled: H-O-W), then the scriptures interpret themselves.
All (without exception or distinction) cults absolutely love to "teach."
When does a writing become scripture?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Ha! Noice 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The "origin" of scripture was likely verbal, not written. If that's what's being pointed to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
One of the reasons believed to have caused the shrinking of the human brain over the past 3000 years is written communication. These matters used to be memorized. As information is written down, less brains are needed. You can imagine how the internet will accelerate this process.
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.