No...it's the animals lack because they don't understand english...I dunno ... thought I could make it make sense...I flunked...
Yet, Mike apparently hopes that seekers who come to GSC for inspiration on why they should return to twi and pflap will diligently sort through the noise and find his remarkable "wisdom" (albeit, his deficient ability to clearly communicate) because God will guide them.
In my cat&dog analogy, we can see a similar situation.
Our pets are missing something that they ALMOST have, especially dogs. They have likes and dislikes and they try to communicate with us, but only get through rough, short ideas. Similarly with us getting complex information down to their level.
It is not a lack on our part that prevents us from communicating RICHLY with animals.
It is not a lack on God's part that prevents Him from communicating RICHLY with spiritless humans.
2 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:
It's not?
49 minutes ago, OldSkool said:
No...it's the animals lack because they don't understand english...I dunno ... thought I could make it make sense...I flunked...
Hold up, hold up!
Are you trying to tell me the Mr. Ed show is not real ?!?!
Yet, Mike apparently hopes that seekers who come to GSC for inspiration on why they should return to twi and pflap
6 hours ago, Mike said:
and is like a Postulate that must be accepted, and then you look for understanding elsewhere.
See I found the reason right here. Postulates that MUST be accepted. then you can look for understanding somewhere else. I included an old pic of myself from my way corps years looking for understanding elsewhere after I had accepted those postulates that must be accepted. Gonna go sleep in tongues now... bullshonta malakas many la seetay...
What in the actual eff does spiritual mechanics work like physical mechanics even mean? Please explain to me how spiritual mechanics work.
LoL.
That was my whole point:
SINCE our senses brain only understands physical mechanics and cannot understand spiritual mechanics, NOT ONE BIT AT ALL, all we can do is accept what the scriptures say about it.
It is pretty clear from the OT scriptures that with "spirit upon" more things could happen. How that works is spiritual and beyond us. That was my point: we can't know spiritual mechanics.
When it comes to the brain, even the physical mechanics are VERY difficult for science at this very moment, but the spiritual mechanics is WAY beyond human comprehension.
That was my whole point:
SINCE our senses brain only understands physical mechanics and cannot understand spiritual mechanics, NOT ONE BIT AT ALL, all we can do is accept what the scriptures say about it.
It is pretty clear from the OT scriptures that with "spirit upon" more things could happen. How that works is spiritual and beyond us. That was my point: we can't know spiritual mechanics.
When it comes to the brain, even the physical mechanics are VERY difficult for science at this very moment, but the spiritual mechanics is WAY beyond human comprehension.
34. Encourages an us-versus-them mindset - great for fortifying groupthink and isolation. “I have no friends when it comes to the Word.”
A. wierwille’s animosity toward Christians outside of TWI was camouflaged by his self-righteous stand on “rightly-dividing the Word”.
wierwille’s claptrap on handling the Greek word for “rightly dividing” – I will try to handle in another post – but for now I’ll just say he laid it out as more of an intellectual pursuit rather than paying attention to any ethical demands.
(Grab some drinks and snacks...this is going to be a long post )
34. Encourages an us-versus-them mindset - great for fortifying groupthink and isolation. “I have no friends when it comes to the Word.”
A. wierwille’s animosity toward Christians outside of TWI was camouflaged by his self-righteous stand on “rightly-dividing the Word”.
B. sets up false dilemmas to polarize students into favoring the supposedly only right choice.
Following up on my earlier post with reference to rightly-dividing, I want to start in the orange book, Power for Abundant Living: The Accuracy of the Bible, chapter 10, The Rightly -divided Word, pages 115:
Time and again I have heard the statement that God’s Word causes trouble in a community or in a church or in our society. After frequently hearing that and after searching The Word as to why there is division and lack of accord among Christians, I wrote a study entitled “Why Division?” Division comes not from the Word of God; it comes from the unbelief of those who refuse to believe the integrity and the accuracy of God’s Word.
End of excerpt
~ ~~ ~
The above sets up reader to get used to the idea of cults “insulating” and/or physically isolating followers from the outside world.
Also, wierwille does not specify the issues of division and lack of harmony.
What did wierwille mean by saying division comes from those who refuse to believe the integrity and accuracy of God’s Word?
What did he mean?
This is indeed a puzzling statement since the Bible is considered the sacred text in Christianity, Judaism, Samaritanism, and many other religions. My curiosity is immediately drawn to the two nouns near the end of his phrase “the integrity and the accuracy of God’s Word”. I’m assuming he’s using standard definitions.
Integrity = internal consistency, the condition of being unified, unimpaired, or sound in construction.
Accuracy = the quality or state of being correct or precise, the degree to which the result of a measurement, calculation, or specification conforms to the correct value or a standard.
In PFAL, wierwille throws around other phrases like mathematical exactness and scientific precision…or…now your Bible won’t fall to pieces…it fits like a hand in a glove…these phrases were used to reinforce certain erroneous teachings - like the 4 crucified with Jesus (something he copied from Bullinger). He would make note of differences in descriptions or discrepancies in the texts to promote a composite narrative of what really happened.
*As a side note on wierwille’s integrity / accuracy spiel see below: Footnote inerrancy versus infallibility…and in case you’re wondering where I stand – I believe in the infallibility of Scripture as being authoritative on all religious matters and that it will never steer me wrong. I do not believe the Scriptures are inerrant.
Continuing from pages 115 & 116 of The Rightly-divided Word:
The subject of this chapter is the accuracy of God’s Word and a workman’s responsibility to that Word. II Timothy 2:15 is our point of departure in studying this topic:
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
The one great requirement of every Biblical student is to rightly divide the Word of Truth. The Bible, the Word of God in its originally-revealed form, is the Word of Truth. But when it is wrongly divided, the true Word does not exist. We have the Word of Truth only to the extent that the Word of God is rightly-divided. Everybody at one time or another divides the Word. The question is not whether we divide the Word; the question is whether we rightly divide it.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
Just wanted to point out a few suspicious ideas wierwille has in the above quote. II Timothy along with I Timothy and Titus are generally considered to be pastoral epistles. Wikipedia states - see my hyperlinks below for each epistle - along with most of the Study Bibles I’ve looked at concur in the opening remarks of those books. So, wierwille’s remark, “The one great requirement of every Biblical student is to rightly divide the Word of Truth” is misleading. The epistle is addressing pastors.
The other questionable item is wierwille’s definition of the Greek word for “rightly dividing” which is orthotomounta in Greek. On page 119 he says this”
… “rightly dividing” in the King James Version, literally means “a perfectly right cutting.” Its intricate nuance of meaning is that there is only one way to rightly cut the Word; all other ways are wrong cuttings…There is only one way to rightly cut The Word; all other ways are wrong cuttings. Now do you understand why we have splits, denominations, and sects in so-called Christianity? They stem from the wrong dividing of The Word.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
The following are excerpts fromBible Hub commentaries on II Timothy 2:15 – these are just a few excerpts from a wide variety of commentaries – I left the hyperlink at the end of these excerpts to encourage you to look at them for a better sense of what Paul was talking about:
rightly dividing the word of truth.—Better rendered rightly laying out the word of truth. The Greek word translated in the English version “rightly dividing,” literally signifies “cutting a straight line.” It seems most correct to regard it as a metaphor from laying out a road (see Proverbs 3:6, in the LXX. rendering, where the word is so used), “or drawing a furrow, the merit of which consists in the straightness with which the work of cutting, or laying out, is performed. The word of truth is, as it were, a road which is to be laid out straightly and truly.” So Ellicott. To affirm (see Alford and Huther-Meyer) that the notion of “cutting” had been gradually lost, and that the word already in the time of St. Paul signified simply “to manage rightly,” “to treat truthfully without falsifying,” and that the exact opposite is to corrupt or adulterate the Word of God (2Corinthians 2:17),
2 Timothy 2:15. Study to show thyself approved, &c. — Greek, σπουδασον σεαυτον δοκιμον παραστησαι τω Θεω, literally, be zealous, make haste, or diligently endeavour, to present thyself approved to God, what ever men may judge of thee and thy services; a workman that needeth not to be ashamed — Either on account of unfaithfulness, unskilfulness, lukewarmness, negligence, or sloth; rightly dividing the word of truth — Greek, ορθοτομουντα, literally, rightly cutting up the word — In allusion, as some think, to the action of the Jewish priests in dissecting the victims, and separating the parts in a proper manner, as some were to be laid on God’s altar, and others to be given to those who were to share in the sacrifices. Or rather, the metaphor may be taken from the distribution made by a steward in delivering out to each person under his care such things as his office and their necessities require; or to the action of one who carves at a table, and distributes meat to the guests, according to their ages, and their state of health. In this manner the apostle himself divided the word to the Corinthians, feeding them with milk, as babes in Christ, and not with meat, as not being then able to bear it. See Hebrews 5:12-14. The Vulgate version renders the clause, recte tractantem, rightly handling the word, which gives the apostle’s meaning very well. Thus those ministers handle it who duly explain and apply the whole gospel, so as to give each hearer his due portion. But they that give one part of the gospel to all, (the promises and comforts, suppose, to unawakened, hardened, and scoffing sinners,) have real need to be ashamed. To divide or handle the word of truth aright, implies that it be done, 1st, With evidence and demonstration, so as to convince the conscience, Acts 2:37; 1 Corinthians 2:4. 2d, With sincerity and faithfulness, delivering the whole counsel of God, Acts 20:27. 3d, With power and authority, Matthew 7:29; 1 Thessalonians 1:5. 4th, With wisdom and seasonableness, as men are able to bear it, Mark 4:33; John 16:12. 5th, With meekness, gentleness, love, and all winning insinuations, 2 Timothy 2:24-25; 1 Thessalonians 2:7. 6th, With courage and boldness, Jeremiah 1:17; Ephesians 6:19.
Rightly dividing the word of truth - The word here rendered "rightly dividing," occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means, properly, "to cut straight, to divide right;" and the allusion here may be to a steward who makes a proper distribution to each one under his care of such things as his office and their necessities require; compare the notes at Matthew 13:52. Some have supposed that there is an allusion here to the Jewish priest, cutting or dividing the sacrifice into proper parts; others, that the allusion is to the scribes dividing the law into sections; others, to a carver distributing food to the guests at a feast. Robinson (Lexicon) renders it, "rightly proceeding as to the word of truth;" that is, rightfully and skillfully teaching the word of truth. The idea seems to be, that the minister of the gospel is to make a proper distribution of that word, adapting his instructions to the circumstances and wants of his hearers, and giving to each that which will be fitted to nourish the soul for heaven.
The objective in the book of Timothy appears to be that those so called to oversee the church in some capacity should strive to be honest and responsible in supervising the church.
the way wierwille handles the passage it looks to me like he is grooming students to think they are qualified theologians and Biblical text scholars – with a subtext of trusting what wierwille says the text should be. I should point out wierwille is neither a qualified theologian nor a Biblical text scholar.
Other things to keep in mind – Timothy did not have a huge knowledge and experience gap to span like we do – he was of course in close proximity to some New Testament events, familiar with the biblical languages, various cultures and worldviews, probably had access to certain reliable and complete manuscripts and scrolls of the Old Testament – so probably didn’t have to do much textual research…so I can’t imagine Paul was that concerned about raising up Biblical text scholars. If you ever read about the apostle Paul – you may have noticed in his epistles and in narratives of his life that he was driven to present Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the law, as our risen Lord and Savior and having supremacy in the grand scheme of things.
Since I left TWI and got into studying the Bible without the mental PFAL-filter, and in going to local churches of different denominations I’ve come to the opinion that wierwille like to make a mountain out of a molehill to galvanize PFAL students into choosing his ministry for the sake of the truth. And my honest feedback of comparing TWI with the local churches I’ve attended – is that I see a lot more concern for genuinely representing Christ in the community and being relevant to the individual, and most have charitable programs going on…and I don’t have a problem giving money to a local church because I can see where it goes to support legitimate overseers, pay for church building maintenance, utility bills and into programs that help those in need in my part of town.
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
*Footnote on inerrancy versus infallibility:
There are two theological terms that are often used to explain the nature of the Bible—inerrancy and infallibility. They are used to point out how the Bible is different from all other books that have ever been written. Many use these terms interchangeably. Infallibility means incapable of making a mistake, while inerrancy means the absence of any error.
These concepts arose when the issue of the divine inspiration of the Bible was being addressed. Questions arose such as: In what sense, or to what degree, is the Bible the divinely inspired Word of God? How does it differ from all other books? The Word Infallible Means Trustworthy. When referring to Scripture, the term infallible is usually used to mean reliable and trustworthy. It refers to something that is without any type of defect whatsoever. Those who trust its infallible teachings will never be lead astray.
The term, “inerrancy” is more recent. While some Christians use inerrancy and infallible interchangeably, they are normally used in slightly different ways. Inerrancy contends that the Bible does not have any errors of fact or any statements that are contradictory. Inerrancy is more concerned with the details of Scripture.
"You can't go beyond what you've been taught."- vpw
I used to meditate on this long ago, but haven't discussed it much here. Is there a thread on it?
This topic is somewhat related to my copyright stands, in that I don't believe anyone really has any original thoughts.
I think many miss some of the meaning of this part of PFAL teaching, "You can't go beyond what you've been taught," because they don't fully know what the phrase "what you've been taught" means.
Most see only complete thoughts in this storehouse of "what you've been taught." What I see are those items, PLUS many fragmented, incomplete thoughts.
Later on, these fragmented, incomplete thoughts can be fitted together to make whole, sound, and useful thoughts. It's a matter of somewhat teaching oneself, using the pieces that came from "what you've been taught."
So in this case it would look, at first glance, like going beyond the whole thoughts that were taught, but it is still not going beyond the pieces that were also "taught in" there.
If there is a thread on this, maybe this thought could be a new addition.
Sorry. For a minute there I thought you were a student in my class.
PFLAP was the last time I took a class by someone not apt to teach. In Elizabethan English, apt means skilled. A skilled teacher doesn't deflect questions. A skilled teacher takes the time to organize his thoughts so meaning is clearly conveyed.
Above all, a skilled teacher is a skilled student, always willing to learn, willing to let go of rotten ideas, willing to embrace the unknown, willing to admit he is wrong so that he might pursue truth.
"You can't go beyond what you've been taught."- vpw
So, where do new ideas come from?
I thought I answered that. They come from piecing together fragments of previously taught thoughts.
Here's a repeat of what I wrote before:
Most see only complete thoughts in this storehouse of "what you've been taught." What I see are those items, PLUS many fragmented, incomplete thoughts.
Later on, these fragmented, incomplete thoughts can be fitted together to make whole, sound, and useful thoughts. It's a matter of somewhat teaching oneself, using the pieces that came from "what you've been taught."
So in this case it would look, at first glance, like going beyond the whole thoughts that were taught, but it is still not going beyond the pieces that were also "taught in" there.
I thought I answered that. They come from piecing together fragments of previously taught thoughts.
Stop and think for a moment how utterly ludicrous that is.
Without the infusion of fresh ideas, totally disconnected to any previously existing ideas, mans' cache of knowledge would have stagnated at the discover of fire..
"You can't go beyond what you've been taught."- vpw
So, where do new ideas come from?
7 minutes ago, Mike said:
I thought I answered that. They come from piecing together fragments of previously taught thoughts.
Here's a repeat of what I wrote before:
Most see only complete thoughts in this storehouse of "what you've been taught." What I see are those items, PLUS many fragmented, incomplete thoughts.
Later on, these fragmented, incomplete thoughts can be fitted together to make whole, sound, and useful thoughts. It's a matter of somewhat teaching oneself, using the pieces that came from "what you've been taught."
So in this case it would look, at first glance, like going beyond the whole thoughts that were taught, but it is still not going beyond the pieces that were also "taught in" there.
God can communicate in less efficient ways, like with phenomena, but it is crude and limited. It's far from a face-to-face conversation.
Think of God being limited in how well He can communicate with natural men, the same way we are limited in how well we can communicate with our pets.... compared with our communication with people.
Excepton that bright, sunshiny day when he spoke audibly to ol' victor. He spoke so that victor could hear him with crystal clarity through vic's old man, natural, five senses ears. Via physical mechanisms by the laws of physical mechanics. Out loud. Audibly. "Just like I'm speaking toyounow."
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
120
259
157
205
Popular Days
Nov 2
154
Oct 30
111
Nov 3
106
Nov 4
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 120 posts
T-Bone 259 posts
OldSkool 157 posts
Nathan_Jr 205 posts
Popular Days
Nov 2 2022
154 posts
Oct 30 2022
111 posts
Nov 3 2022
106 posts
Nov 4 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
VPW's statement that the Bible interprets itself is nonsense. The act of interpretation of any text is done by the reader of the text. People interpret what they read. They are the ones who give it me
waysider
And in doing so, he was violating his own "To Whom it is Written" rule.
Charity
What I see in what you wrote Chockfull is that we were meant to have a relationship with the class - you know the one that replaced our relationship with Christ. It was our lord in that it had power,
Posted Images
Nathan_Jr
It's not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
No...it's the animals lack because they don't understand english...I dunno ... thought I could make it make sense...I flunked...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Yet, Mike apparently hopes that seekers who come to GSC for inspiration on why they should return to twi and pflap will diligently sort through the noise and find his remarkable "wisdom" (albeit, his deficient ability to clearly communicate) because God will guide them.
Mike flunked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
What about St. Francis of Assisi?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hold up, hold up!
Are you trying to tell me the Mr. Ed show is not real ?!?!
I’ve got those empty PFAL syllabus blues
Edited by T-BoneGolly gee Wilbur
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It's only real if you beleeve it to be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Well, if Mr. Ed says it, I beleeve it, that saddles it!
I’m wanting to have a stable beleefe system
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Dats RIIIIGHt!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
See I found the reason right here. Postulates that MUST be accepted. then you can look for understanding somewhere else. I included an old pic of myself from my way corps years looking for understanding elsewhere after I had accepted those postulates that must be accepted. Gonna go sleep in tongues now... bullshonta malakas many la seetay...
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Using "spirit levels," no doubt.
Or are the "optics" bad for that?
.
.
.
Ludicrous statement from Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
LoL.
That was my whole point:
SINCE our senses brain only understands physical mechanics and cannot understand spiritual mechanics, NOT ONE BIT AT ALL, all we can do is accept what the scriptures say about it.
It is pretty clear from the OT scriptures that with "spirit upon" more things could happen. How that works is spiritual and beyond us. That was my point: we can't know spiritual mechanics.
Edited by MikeWhen it comes to the brain, even the physical mechanics are VERY difficult for science at this very moment, but the spiritual mechanics is WAY beyond human comprehension.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
See my answer to OldSkool immediately above this one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
(Grab some drinks and snacks...this is going to be a long post
)
34. Encourages an us-versus-them mindset - great for fortifying groupthink and isolation. “I have no friends when it comes to the Word.”
A. wierwille’s animosity toward Christians outside of TWI was camouflaged by his self-righteous stand on “rightly-dividing the Word”.
B. sets up false dilemmas to polarize students into favoring the supposedly only right choice.
Following up on my earlier post with reference to rightly-dividing, I want to start in the orange book, Power for Abundant Living: The Accuracy of the Bible, chapter 10, The Rightly -divided Word, pages 115:
Time and again I have heard the statement that God’s Word causes trouble in a community or in a church or in our society. After frequently hearing that and after searching The Word as to why there is division and lack of accord among Christians, I wrote a study entitled “Why Division?” Division comes not from the Word of God; it comes from the unbelief of those who refuse to believe the integrity and the accuracy of God’s Word.
End of excerpt
~ ~~ ~
The above sets up reader to get used to the idea of cults “insulating” and/or physically isolating followers from the outside world.
Also, wierwille does not specify the issues of division and lack of harmony.
What did wierwille mean by saying division comes from those who refuse to believe the integrity and accuracy of God’s Word?
What did he mean?
This is indeed a puzzling statement since the Bible is considered the sacred text in Christianity, Judaism, Samaritanism, and many other religions. My curiosity is immediately drawn to the two nouns near the end of his phrase “the integrity and the accuracy of God’s Word”. I’m assuming he’s using standard definitions.
Integrity = internal consistency, the condition of being unified, unimpaired, or sound in construction.
Accuracy = the quality or state of being correct or precise, the degree to which the result of a measurement, calculation, or specification conforms to the correct value or a standard.
In PFAL, wierwille throws around other phrases like mathematical exactness and scientific precision…or…now your Bible won’t fall to pieces…it fits like a hand in a glove…these phrases were used to reinforce certain erroneous teachings - like the 4 crucified with Jesus (something he copied from Bullinger). He would make note of differences in descriptions or discrepancies in the texts to promote a composite narrative of what really happened.
*As a side note on wierwille’s integrity / accuracy spiel see below: Footnote inerrancy versus infallibility…and in case you’re wondering where I stand – I believe in the infallibility of Scripture as being authoritative on all religious matters and that it will never steer me wrong. I do not believe the Scriptures are inerrant.
Continuing from pages 115 & 116 of The Rightly-divided Word:
The subject of this chapter is the accuracy of God’s Word and a workman’s responsibility to that Word. II Timothy 2:15 is our point of departure in studying this topic:
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
The one great requirement of every Biblical student is to rightly divide the Word of Truth. The Bible, the Word of God in its originally-revealed form, is the Word of Truth. But when it is wrongly divided, the true Word does not exist. We have the Word of Truth only to the extent that the Word of God is rightly-divided. Everybody at one time or another divides the Word. The question is not whether we divide the Word; the question is whether we rightly divide it.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
Just wanted to point out a few suspicious ideas wierwille has in the above quote. II Timothy along with I Timothy and Titus are generally considered to be pastoral epistles. Wikipedia states - see my hyperlinks below for each epistle - along with most of the Study Bibles I’ve looked at concur in the opening remarks of those books. So, wierwille’s remark, “The one great requirement of every Biblical student is to rightly divide the Word of Truth” is misleading. The epistle is addressing pastors.
The other questionable item is wierwille’s definition of the Greek word for “rightly dividing” which is orthotomounta in Greek. On page 119 he says this”
… “rightly dividing” in the King James Version, literally means “a perfectly right cutting.” Its intricate nuance of meaning is that there is only one way to rightly cut the Word; all other ways are wrong cuttings…There is only one way to rightly cut The Word; all other ways are wrong cuttings. Now do you understand why we have splits, denominations, and sects in so-called Christianity? They stem from the wrong dividing of The Word.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
The following are excerpts from Bible Hub commentaries on II Timothy 2:15 – these are just a few excerpts from a wide variety of commentaries – I left the hyperlink at the end of these excerpts to encourage you to look at them for a better sense of what Paul was talking about:
rightly dividing the word of truth.—Better rendered rightly laying out the word of truth. The Greek word translated in the English version “rightly dividing,” literally signifies “cutting a straight line.” It seems most correct to regard it as a metaphor from laying out a road (see Proverbs 3:6, in the LXX. rendering, where the word is so used), “or drawing a furrow, the merit of which consists in the straightness with which the work of cutting, or laying out, is performed. The word of truth is, as it were, a road which is to be laid out straightly and truly.” So Ellicott. To affirm (see Alford and Huther-Meyer) that the notion of “cutting” had been gradually lost, and that the word already in the time of St. Paul signified simply “to manage rightly,” “to treat truthfully without falsifying,” and that the exact opposite is to corrupt or adulterate the Word of God (2Corinthians 2:17),
2 Timothy 2:15. Study to show thyself approved, &c. — Greek, σπουδασον σεαυτον δοκιμον παραστησαι τω Θεω, literally, be zealous, make haste, or diligently endeavour, to present thyself approved to God, what ever men may judge of thee and thy services; a workman that needeth not to be ashamed — Either on account of unfaithfulness, unskilfulness, lukewarmness, negligence, or sloth; rightly dividing the word of truth — Greek, ορθοτομουντα, literally, rightly cutting up the word — In allusion, as some think, to the action of the Jewish priests in dissecting the victims, and separating the parts in a proper manner, as some were to be laid on God’s altar, and others to be given to those who were to share in the sacrifices. Or rather, the metaphor may be taken from the distribution made by a steward in delivering out to each person under his care such things as his office and their necessities require; or to the action of one who carves at a table, and distributes meat to the guests, according to their ages, and their state of health. In this manner the apostle himself divided the word to the Corinthians, feeding them with milk, as babes in Christ, and not with meat, as not being then able to bear it. See Hebrews 5:12-14. The Vulgate version renders the clause, recte tractantem, rightly handling the word, which gives the apostle’s meaning very well. Thus those ministers handle it who duly explain and apply the whole gospel, so as to give each hearer his due portion. But they that give one part of the gospel to all, (the promises and comforts, suppose, to unawakened, hardened, and scoffing sinners,) have real need to be ashamed. To divide or handle the word of truth aright, implies that it be done, 1st, With evidence and demonstration, so as to convince the conscience, Acts 2:37; 1 Corinthians 2:4. 2d, With sincerity and faithfulness, delivering the whole counsel of God, Acts 20:27. 3d, With power and authority, Matthew 7:29; 1 Thessalonians 1:5. 4th, With wisdom and seasonableness, as men are able to bear it, Mark 4:33; John 16:12. 5th, With meekness, gentleness, love, and all winning insinuations, 2 Timothy 2:24-25; 1 Thessalonians 2:7. 6th, With courage and boldness, Jeremiah 1:17; Ephesians 6:19.
Rightly dividing the word of truth - The word here rendered "rightly dividing," occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means, properly, "to cut straight, to divide right;" and the allusion here may be to a steward who makes a proper distribution to each one under his care of such things as his office and their necessities require; compare the notes at Matthew 13:52. Some have supposed that there is an allusion here to the Jewish priest, cutting or dividing the sacrifice into proper parts; others, that the allusion is to the scribes dividing the law into sections; others, to a carver distributing food to the guests at a feast. Robinson (Lexicon) renders it, "rightly proceeding as to the word of truth;" that is, rightfully and skillfully teaching the word of truth. The idea seems to be, that the minister of the gospel is to make a proper distribution of that word, adapting his instructions to the circumstances and wants of his hearers, and giving to each that which will be fitted to nourish the soul for heaven.
From: Bible Hub: commentaries of II Timothy 2:15
end of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
The objective in the book of Timothy appears to be that those so called to oversee the church in some capacity should strive to be honest and responsible in supervising the church.
the way wierwille handles the passage it looks to me like he is grooming students to think they are qualified theologians and Biblical text scholars – with a subtext of trusting what wierwille says the text should be. I should point out wierwille is neither a qualified theologian nor a Biblical text scholar.
Other things to keep in mind – Timothy did not have a huge knowledge and experience gap to span like we do – he was of course in close proximity to some New Testament events, familiar with the biblical languages, various cultures and worldviews, probably had access to certain reliable and complete manuscripts and scrolls of the Old Testament – so probably didn’t have to do much textual research…so I can’t imagine Paul was that concerned about raising up Biblical text scholars. If you ever read about the apostle Paul – you may have noticed in his epistles and in narratives of his life that he was driven to present Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the law, as our risen Lord and Savior and having supremacy in the grand scheme of things.
see also:
II Timothy 2 NIV
I Timothy
II Timothy
Titus
dating the Bible
Paul, Timothy and Old Testament Scriptures
What text did Jesus read?
Quora: what "Bible" did Jesus use?
Books and scrolls in the world of Jesus
Britannica: Saint Paul
Wikipedia: Paul the Apostle
~ ~ ~ ~
Since I left TWI and got into studying the Bible without the mental PFAL-filter, and in going to local churches of different denominations I’ve come to the opinion that wierwille like to make a mountain out of a molehill to galvanize PFAL students into choosing his ministry for the sake of the truth. And my honest feedback of comparing TWI with the local churches I’ve attended – is that I see a lot more concern for genuinely representing Christ in the community and being relevant to the individual, and most have charitable programs going on…and I don’t have a problem giving money to a local church because I can see where it goes to support legitimate overseers, pay for church building maintenance, utility bills and into programs that help those in need in my part of town.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
*Footnote on inerrancy versus infallibility:
There are two theological terms that are often used to explain the nature of the Bible—inerrancy and infallibility. They are used to point out how the Bible is different from all other books that have ever been written. Many use these terms interchangeably. Infallibility means incapable of making a mistake, while inerrancy means the absence of any error.
These concepts arose when the issue of the divine inspiration of the Bible was being addressed. Questions arose such as: In what sense, or to what degree, is the Bible the divinely inspired Word of God? How does it differ from all other books? The Word Infallible Means Trustworthy. When referring to Scripture, the term infallible is usually used to mean reliable and trustworthy. It refers to something that is without any type of defect whatsoever. Those who trust its infallible teachings will never be lead astray.
The term, “inerrancy” is more recent. While some Christians use inerrancy and infallible interchangeably, they are normally used in slightly different ways. Inerrancy contends that the Bible does not have any errors of fact or any statements that are contradictory. Inerrancy is more concerned with the details of Scripture.
From: difference between inerrancy and infallibility
End of excerpts
= = == =
End of post…thank God!
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I used to meditate on this long ago, but haven't discussed it much here. Is there a thread on it?
This topic is somewhat related to my copyright stands, in that I don't believe anyone really has any original thoughts.
I think many miss some of the meaning of this part of PFAL teaching, "You can't go beyond what you've been taught," because they don't fully know what the phrase "what you've been taught" means.
Most see only complete thoughts in this storehouse of "what you've been taught." What I see are those items, PLUS many fragmented, incomplete thoughts.
Later on, these fragmented, incomplete thoughts can be fitted together to make whole, sound, and useful thoughts. It's a matter of somewhat teaching oneself, using the pieces that came from "what you've been taught."
So in this case it would look, at first glance, like going beyond the whole thoughts that were taught, but it is still not going beyond the pieces that were also "taught in" there.
If there is a thread on this, maybe this thought could be a new addition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
That's ALL we can do?
Not so fast! That's all YOU can do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sorry. For a minute there I thought you were a student in my class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Let me be the first to say it: LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
PFLAP was the last time I took a class by someone not apt to teach. In Elizabethan English, apt means skilled. A skilled teacher doesn't deflect questions. A skilled teacher takes the time to organize his thoughts so meaning is clearly conveyed.
Above all, a skilled teacher is a skilled student, always willing to learn, willing to let go of rotten ideas, willing to embrace the unknown, willing to admit he is wrong so that he might pursue truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"You can't go beyond what you've been taught."- vpw
So, where do new ideas come from?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I thought I answered that. They come from piecing together fragments of previously taught thoughts.
Here's a repeat of what I wrote before:
Most see only complete thoughts in this storehouse of "what you've been taught." What I see are those items, PLUS many fragmented, incomplete thoughts.
Later on, these fragmented, incomplete thoughts can be fitted together to make whole, sound, and useful thoughts. It's a matter of somewhat teaching oneself, using the pieces that came from "what you've been taught."
So in this case it would look, at first glance, like going beyond the whole thoughts that were taught, but it is still not going beyond the pieces that were also "taught in" there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Stop and think for a moment how utterly ludicrous that is.
Without the infusion of fresh ideas, totally disconnected to any previously existing ideas, mans' cache of knowledge would have stagnated at the discover of fire..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I rest my case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Except on that bright, sunshiny day when he spoke audibly to ol' victor. He spoke so that victor could hear him with crystal clarity through vic's old man, natural, five senses ears. Via physical mechanisms by the laws of physical mechanics. Out loud. Audibly. "Just like I'm speaking to you now."
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.