T-Bone, the reason it was called a donation was to get around tax laws. If they called it a payment then they'd have to charge sales tax and the funds collected would be taxed.
Yeah, I’m aware of that…I also know a charitable organization - and it varies - according to federal and state laws can be defined as a nonprofit organization that seeks to advance some public benefit – in a broad range of areas such as education, poverty alleviation, scientific research, environment, diversity, religion, and health…I guess on paper it looks like TWI is a charitable organization…just like Scientology...I just think TWI is not interested in advancing any public benefit - just filling their own pockets.
Malachi 3:10 “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it”. ..
And in doing so, he was violating his own "To Whom it is Written" rule.
Oh...yeah...ABS was to be sent to HQ unmolested...lol. it was supposed to be distributed back to the field as there was need but it's a one way flow to HQ.
So the budgets for Way of USA were set up I think on an 85/15 budget where 15% is supposed to remain local.
How that plays out is one full time salaried staff (usually both husband and wife working) per region. And petty cash.
The 85 % goes back to really spiritually critical stuff.
Like forging molten cows I mean Timothy statues, keeping grounds clean, paying lawyers to ensure tax exempt fleecing continues, and constructing large empty auditoriums. Oh and broadcast quality video equipment to ensure the class cycle continues. Oh yeah and paying off victims no it wasn’t insurance there was a separate lawsuit they filed against insurance company to try and collect back the money from the Allen settlement.
And in doing so, he was violating his own "To Whom it is Written" rule.
Wow Waysider – that never occurred to me !!!!
I think you’ve got reason # 115 of why PFAL sucks…and I’ll cover your stretched coffee tab.
115. Contradictory ideas in PFAL go unnoticed due to the compartmentalization factor of the “PFAL-mindset”.
In a PFAL session wierwille taught the Old Testament was not written to us – from which one can logically surmise the laws, promises, directives, and even the tithing system are not applicable to us. Yet in a class collateral, wierwille pivots by saying something along the lines of us taking advantage of the age of grace so God will do even more for us.
116. Saint Vic knew how to capture the youth: just pick the most radical theories and make them a part of your spin on religion, i.e., four crucified, anti-trinity, etc.
Not sure which item number this fits under in this thread.
I have a few pressing projects tying up most of my time these days, especially with the holidays happening.But I’ve also had more time to think about some things.
It has been a puzzle to me why people are so upset with “The Bible interprets itself,” but I think I am finally understanding some of it.
First let me tell you why I liked it, upon first hearing it.
I am sure I NEVER took it to be literal, but took it as a figure of speech right from the start. And the first thing it told me had nothing to do with the many details that followed, which eventually explained the figure of speech to my complete satisfaction.
What “the Bible interprets itself” FIRST says to me is that there is really only ONE Author of that book.
How I quickly arrived at that, upon my first exposures to the phrase, I’ll leave as a temporary mystery for you all, since I said time is short, especially today.
I probably first heard this phrase from teenagers at my first twig, then 8 weeks later read the PFAL book, and then 4 months later took the film class. We didn’t have SNT tapes then, because they were reel to reel.
*/*/*/*/*
Tell me if I am wrong, but I sense that you all took the phrase to be literal, in the sense that the Bible was like an intricate machine or computer, and that IT did all the work of interpreting, leaving us readers with nothing to interpret.
This reminds me of a joke a couple of my airline friends have told me over the years, and that I hear in the media now at times.The cockpit area of modern airliners are SO AUTOMATED that they only need one pilot to fly it, and one dog to accompany him. The dog’s job is to bite the hand of the of the pilot if he tries to touch any of the controls.
I get the impression that the first take you folks had on hearing with “The Bible interprets itself” was the Bible was like a machine that was SO AUTOMATED that we human readers need do nothing for the interpretation. And if we try, a dog might bite us.
That is like saying, that there are only two possibilities:
either we can perform a private interpretation, or we can perform NO INTERPRETATION at all. And if we want avoid having Tick bite us in the hand, we must choose “no interpretation.”
I have never thought that way.
On first hearing this teaching and then the many details that followed, it was obvious to me that the Bible was not an automated interpreting machine at all.
It was obvious that I had a lot of work to do (not automated) in order for my interpreting performance to NOT be a private interpretation, but a PROPER interpretation, a rightly-divided interpretation.
The way I avoid a private interpretation is to follow the 80 some pages in the book on HOW the “The Bible interprets itself.”
If I follow those steps and avail myself of the resources WITHIN the Bible for my interpreting work, that can help me avoid a private interpretation.
A private interpretation is one where I do NOT avail myself of the resources within the Bible for this, but look within MY OWN resources for the interpretation.
*/*/*/*
Another analogy of the false model for understanding “The Bible interprets itself” is a topic we discussed before.This false model of an automated Bible, that has the ability to interpret for us like a machine or computer, has befuddled some here, I sense.
This other analogy I have in mind is called a “Formal System” in mathematics that was being discussed in the late 1800s and early 1900s.A formal system was a theoretical math machine that could prove mathematical theorems and proofs.It was a theoretical Logic Machine. It could do math jobs that were too difficult for humans to do.
They were using this “math machine” to find and prove all of mathematical truth.Kinda sounds like a Bible that interprets itself?
Godel’s Theorems in 1933 completely busted this logic machine idea. I was fascinated by Godel before I took the class. Maybe this is why I knew right off the bat that “The Bible interprets itself” had to be a figure of speech.
Not sure which item number this fits under in this thread.
We can always assign this a new number
Reason # 117 of why PFAL sucks
117. true devotees of PFAL become unscrupulous in their efforts to defend it
1 hour ago, Mike said:
I get the impression that the first take you folks had on hearing with “The Bible interprets itself” was the Bible was like a machine that was SO AUTOMATED that we human readers need do nothing for the interpretation.
I think you’re wrong in your mischaracterization of how students fell for wierwille’s con of the Bible interprets itself. He led us to believe if you follow some simple rules – that he got from Bullinger, you can’t go wrong. There’s a compound problem with wierwille’s plagiarism. He was inconsistent in following someone else’s ideas – sometimes ignoring a key point and sometimes mixing in his own stupid ideas. PFAL students ABSORBED RATHER THAN ANALYZED wierwille’s method for interpreting the Bible.
In Bullinger’s book “How to Enjoy the Bible” Bullinger says in regard to the phrase “of any private interpretation”, is that the little word “of” is genitive of origin – and is simply saying Scripture wasn’t CONCEIVEDby anyone’s imagination or personal interpretation. Bullinger goes on from there to cover some basic hermeneutics – which is the study of the methodological principles of interpretation of the Bible. I believe Bullinger got that part right.
In PFAL however, wierwille muddied up II Peter 1:20 and said The Bible should not be privately interpretated – in other words, it’s a no-no to have or offer a personal interpretation or opinion……there is to be no “I think it means this”. wierwille goes on to say that if no private interpretation is allowed then there is either no possible interpretation or the Bible must interpret itself. If you’ve ever studied logical fallacies, then it shouldn’t surprise you that wierwille’s premise offers PFAL students a false dilemma - also referred to as false dichotomy – it is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available.
Just pause for a moment and think about what an affront that is to logic, linguistics, historians, sociologists, anthropologists, and philosophers – not to mention Bible scholars, translators and textual researchers. We’re talking about a compilation of 66 different books written by 40 different authors over the course of an approximately 1500-year period, using basically 3 different languages, spanning a variety of cultural, political, and geographical settings. Needless to say, wierwille's idea that the Bible interprets itself is silly...absurd...laughable...and I can't believe I actually bought into it at one point in my life. In my defense I will say I was young and naïve. critical thinking schmitical thinking.
The reason “Scripture interprets itself” is nonsensical – is because 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.
Interpreter: responsible for facilitating communication between different language speakers by translating information from one language to another for easy comprehension.
Note in all the above definitions there is an intermediary or go-between involved - a person who acts as a link between people of different languages. The ancient biblical manuscripts were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. A translator of those texts is building a bridge to connect disparate people of another time, culture and language with people of today who speak English, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, Hindi, 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 approaching exposition of the Bible, paying attention to the verse, context, previous usage, etc. It’s a given that our cognitive skills are involved rather than expecting inanimate words on a page to do the job. It’s as if Bullinger was saying "To properly understand and to honestly teach what is the message of a certain passage this is HOW YOU should interpret the Bible".
Neither Bullinger nor wierwille are the gold standard for interpreting the Bible! Another goofy interpretation principle Bullinger promoted and which wierwille copied was “scripture buildup” – and that’s how Bullinger came up with 4 crucified – and wierwille plagiarized that too!
Maybe you need to reevaluate 4 crucified and a lot of the other suspect doctrines of wierwille and try to have an intellectually honest approach to Scripture instead of trying to insinuate we misunderstood what wierwille taught. What he taught was wrong – end of story!
I believe the phrase “scripture interprets itself” is something wierwille erroneously bastardized from Bullinger’s works.
Im pretty sure he reworded this statement from the Introduction of How to Enjoy the Bible:
"OPEN THE BOOK"
and let it speak for itself, with the full conviction that if this can be done it can speak more
loudly, and more effectively for itself, than any man can speak on its behalf.
of course Bullinger followed up with this next paragraph:
May the Lord deign to use these pages, and make them to be that "guide" to a better
understanding and a greater enjoyment of His own Word.
Obviously Bullinger wasn't saying the Bible intreprets itself and in fact that phrase isn't found in How to Enjoy the Bible. I have an electronic copy and searched that phrase...its a big 0
I have a few pressing projects tying up most of my time these days, especially with the holidays happening.But I’ve also had more time to think about some things.
Riiiiiiiiiight.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
It has been a puzzle to me
It has?
1 hour ago, Mike said:
why people are so upset with “The Bible interprets itself,”
No one is upset.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
but I think I am finally understanding some of it.
Again, no one's upset. That's all there is to understand about that.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
I am sure I NEVER took it to be literal, but took it as a figure of speech right from the start. And the first thing it told me had nothing to do with the many details that followed, which eventually explained the figure of speech to my complete satisfaction.
Good for you. Sounds like you are quite satisfied with your own private interpretations of victor's verbiage. Bravo! So proud of ya.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
What “the Bible interprets itself” FIRST says to me is that there is really only ONE Author of that book.
Is that your own private interpretation of what it FIRST says to you? Strange. That's not at all what the sentence itself says.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
How I quickly arrived at that, upon my first exposures to the phrase, I’ll leave as a temporary mystery for you all, since I said time is short, especially today.
Thanks.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
I probably first heard this phrase from teenagers at my first twig, then 8 weeks later read the PFAL book, and then 4 months later took the film class. We didn’t have SNT tapes then, because they were reel to reel.
So what?
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Tell me if I am wrong, but I sense that you all took the phrase to be literal, in the sense that the Bible was like an intricate machine or computer, and that IT did all the work of interpreting, leaving us readers with nothing to interpret.
You're wrong.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
This reminds me of a joke a couple of my airline friends have told me over the years, and that I hear in the media now at times.The cockpit area of modern airliners are SO AUTOMATED that they only need one pilot to fly it, and one dog to accompany him. The dog’s job is to bite the hand of the of the pilot if he tries to touch any of the controls.
Ha ha!! "Airline fiends."
1 hour ago, Mike said:
I get the impression that the first take you folks had on hearing with “The Bible interprets itself” was the Bible was like a machine that was SO AUTOMATED that we human readers need do nothing for the interpretation. And if we try, a dog might bite us.
You got the wrong impression.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
That is like saying, that there are only two possibilities:
either we can perform a private interpretation, or we can perform NO INTERPRETATION at all. And if we want avoid having Tick bite us in the hand, we must choose “no interpretation.”
That's kinda what "The Bible interprets itself" is saying.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
I have never thought that way.
You haven't?
1 hour ago, Mike said:
On first hearing this teaching and then the many details that followed, it was obvious to me that the Bible was not an automated interpreting machine at all.
We all crawl before we walk. Proud of ya!
1 hour ago, Mike said:
The way I avoid a private interpretation is to follow the 80 some pages in the book on HOW the “The Bible interprets itself.”
More accurately: HOW (H-OW) to interpret the Bible, according to victor's schema. Why is victor's private interpretation better than your own?
1 hour ago, Mike said:
If I follow those steps and avail myself of the resources WITHIN the Bible for my interpreting work, that can help me avoid a private interpretation.
The resources WITHIN? Resources? Within?
Like the "resources" WITHIN a Borges poem, a Steely Dan song, or a Terrence Malick film?
1 hour ago, Mike said:
A private interpretation is one where I do NOT avail myself of the resources within the Bible for this, but look within MY OWN resources for the interpretation.
It has been a puzzle to me why people are so upset with “The Bible interprets itself,” but I think I am finally understanding some of it.
I read all of you post...but honestly...nothing you say after this sentence is worth reading. Why? Because you set up a straw man and address it as if it's real. Nobody here is upset over anything. If anything you are projecting your upsettedness out onto others who dare challenge wierwille. But seriously...why set up a logic fallacy straight out the gate?
Then you lurk for several days only to come back with the same bullshonta, except you try the strawman approach? Yeah...hows that working out.
I believe the phrase “scripture interprets itself” is something wierwille erroneouslybastardized 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 approaching exposition of the Bible, paying attention to the verse, context, previous usage, etc. It’s a given that our cognitive skills are involved rather than expecting inanimate words on a page to do the job. It’s as if Bullinger was saying "To properly understand and to honestly teach what is the message of a certain passage this is HOW YOU should interpret the Bible".
1 hour ago, OldSkool said:
Im pretty sure he reworded this statement from the Introduction of How to Enjoy the Bible:
"OPEN THE BOOK"
and let it speak for itself, with the full conviction that if this can be done it can speak more
loudly, and more effectively for itself, than any man can speak on its behalf.
of course Bullinger followed up with this next paragraph:
May the Lord deign to use these pages, and make them to be that "guide" to a better
understanding and a greater enjoyment of His own Word.
Obviously Bullinger wasn't saying the Bible intreprets itself and in fact that phrase isn't found in How to Enjoy the Bible. I have an electronic copy and searched that phrase...its a big 0
Yes - I agree that's why I said wierwilleerroneouslybastardized Bullinger's works
erroneously= in a mistaken way; incorrectly; Synonyms: amiss, faultily, improperly
bastardized = (of a version of something) lower in quality or value than the original form, typically as a result of the addition of new elements; SIMILAR: adulterate, corrupt, contaminate, weaken, dilute, spoil,
taint, pollute, foul, defile, debase, degrade, devalue, depreciate
I read all of you post...but honestly...nothing you say after this sentence is worth reading. Why? Because you set up a straw man and address it as if it's real. Nobody here is upset over anything. If anything you are projecting your upsettedness out onto others who dare challenge wierwille. But seriously...why set up a logic fallacy straight out the gate?
Then you lurk for several days only to come back with the same bullshonta, except you try the strawman approach? Yeah...hows that working out.
Sorry, for my strong language.
What word would work for you, in stead of upset?
How about "concerned" or "against" or "in opposition to"
The ideas that follow that sentence have nothing to do with anyone being really upset emotionally.
I meant intellectually upset, in the sense that you had in your lifestyle of thinking at one time, and then you "up set" it and took it out of your lifestyle of thinking.
What word would work for you, in stead of upset?
How about "concerned" or "against" or "in opposition to"
Again - nobody is concerned, against, or in opposition to anything. Because you use synonyms doesn't negate the logic fallacy. Disagreement doesn't really have to carry any of these elements. I just simply disagree with no emotional attachement at all.
What word would work for you, in stead of upset?
How about "concerned" or "against" or "in opposition to"
The ideas that follow that sentence have nothing to do with anyone being really upset emotionally.
I meant intellectually upset, in the sense that you had in your lifestyle of thinking at one time, and then you "up set" it and took it out of your lifestyle of thinking.
The interpretation of the sentence "the Bible interprets itself," according to the resources WITHIN the sentence, is: the only valid interpretation of the Bible is victor's.
When one turns away from idolatry and error and makes a free will choice to love God, Truth, one can understand the sinister meaning of this devilish doctrine.
You really know where your towel is. Watch out for Vogons.
I was in a philosophy class and the professor made the mistake of asking the class, "Haven't you ever wondered what the answer is to life, the universe, everything?"
A private interpretation is one where I do NOT avail myself of the resources within the Bible for this, but look within MY OWN resources for the interpretation.
...and
1 hour ago, Nathan_Jr said:
This makes no sense.
Glad you asked for help on this.
"within the Bible" refers to things like "used before" and "context" and "scripture buildup." It could even include subtle things like asking God in prayer for help. There are lots of things this phrase refers to. Look at those 80 some pages in the PFAL book to refresh your memory for more examples of what "within the Bible means."
"within MY OWN resources" refers to my private desire for what I'd like it to say. There are many religious people who think this private desire thing or feeling is God talking to them directly, and that they need not worry much about what the printed words say. There are many examples of private resources, but like I said, I am short on time these days. Sometimes private resources could mean far out non-Christian religious writings that I personally favor. What these resources all have in common is they all are NOT from within the Bible.
"within the Bible" refers to things like "used before" and "context" and "scripture buildup." It could even include subtle things like asking God in prayer for help. There are lots of things this phrase refers to. Look at those 80 some pages in the PFAL book to refresh your memory for more examples of what "within the Bible means."
In other words, literally letting the bible interprets itself.
6 minutes ago, Mike said:
"within MY OWN resources" refers to my private desire for what I'd like it to say. There are many religious people who think this private desire thing or feeling is God talking to them directly, and that they need not worry much about what the printed words say. There are many examples of private resources, but like I said, I am short on time these days. Sometimes private resources could mean far out non-Christian religious writings that I personally favor. What these resources all have in common is they all are NOT from within the Bible
Like what Saint Vic did when he stole everyone else's work. He used HIS opinion to decide what was true and what was false.
within the Bible" refers to things like "used before" and "context" and "scripture buildup." It
“Scripture buildup” is totally bogus - it depends on what wierwille says is relevant- that’s how Bullinger conjured up 4 crucified - and wierwille copied Bullinger’s stupid trick. 4 crucified is just stupid!
Do you ever wonder why you’ve lost credibility here? Hint: defending blatant error has something to do with it.
"within the Bible" refers to things like "used before" and "context" and "scripture buildup." It could even include subtle things like asking God in prayer for help. There are lots of things this phrase refers to. Look at those 80 some pages in the PFAL book to refresh your memory for more examples of what "within the Bible means."
"within MY OWN resources" refers to my private desire for what I'd like it to say. There are many religious people who think this private desire thing or feeling is God talking to them directly, and that they need not worry much about what the printed words say. There are many examples of private resources, but like I said, I am short on time these days. Sometimes private resources could mean far out non-Christian religious writings that I personally favor. What these resources all have in common is they all are NOT from within the Bible.
More accurately,
Theinterpretation of the sentence "the Bible interprets itself," according to the resources WITHIN the sentence, is: the only valid interpretation of the Bible is victor's.
When one turns away from idolatry and error and makes a free will choice to love God, Truth, one can understand the sinister meaning of this devilish doctrine.
First let me tell you why I liked it, upon first hearing it.
... What “the Bible interprets itself” FIRST says to me is that there is really only ONE Author of that book.
How I quickly arrived at that, upon my first exposures to the phrase, I’ll leave as a temporary mystery for you all, since I said time is short, especially today.
Can anyone see how I arrived at this BEFORE hearing the teaching of HOW the Bible interprets itself (80 pages worth in the PFAL book) ?
If the Bible were NOT of one Author, then it could not really interpret itself. THAT would make the phrase we're discussing ridiculous, if it were true.
Could it be that THIS is the smoking gun for what all the non-upset hoopla is about?
Do some want the Bible to be NOT of one Author, but of segmented authorship, and no real, together, consistent "itself" to "do" the interpreting?
Can anyone see how I arrived at this BEFORE hearing the teaching of HOW the Bible interprets itself (80 pages worth in the PFAL book) ?
If the Bible were NOT of one Author, then it could not really interpret itself. THAT would make the phrase we're discussing ridiculous, if it were true.
Could it be that THIS is the smoking gun for what all the non-upset hoopla is about?
Do some want the Bible to be NOT of one Author, but of segmented authorship, and no real, together, consistent "itself" to "do" the interpreting?
Got...
...to...
...make... it...
...FIT!
The Bible doesn't have one author. This is obvious to anyone who has ever studied the Bible.
When you say Author, you me victor's god? Why do you capitalize Author?
Can anyone see how I arrived at this BEFORE hearing the teaching of HOW the Bible interprets itself (80 pages worth in the PFAL book) ?
If the Bible were NOT of one Author, then it could not really interpret itself. THAT would make the phrase we're discussing ridiculous, if it were true.
Could it be that THIS is the smoking gun for what all the non-upset hoopla is about?
Do some want the Bible to be NOT of one Author, but of segmented authorship, and no real, together, consistent "itself" to "do" the interpreting?
Another straw man argument
the Bible is coauthored - God inspired humans.
whether one considers the Bible as a single author book or coauthored - it still needs to be interpreted!!!!
what a goofball argument- the only upset hoopla is something you are projecting- you’re probably upset that you’ve worked on this angle for weeks…months …and still no one is buying it…oh well
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
T-Bone
Yeah, I’m aware of that…I also know a charitable organization - and it varies - according to federal and state laws can be defined as a nonprofit organization that seeks to advance some public benefit – in a broad range of areas such as education, poverty alleviation, scientific research, environment, diversity, religion, and health…I guess on paper it looks like TWI is a charitable organization…just like Scientology...I just think TWI is not interested in advancing any public benefit - just filling their own pockets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
And in doing so, he was violating his own "To Whom it is Written" rule.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So the budgets for Way of USA were set up I think on an 85/15 budget where 15% is supposed to remain local.
How that plays out is one full time salaried staff (usually both husband and wife working) per region. And petty cash.
The 85 % goes back to really spiritually critical stuff.
Like forging molten cows I mean Timothy statues, keeping grounds clean, paying lawyers to ensure tax exempt fleecing continues, and constructing large empty auditoriums. Oh and broadcast quality video equipment to ensure the class cycle continues. Oh yeah and paying off victims no it wasn’t insurance there was a separate lawsuit they filed against insurance company to try and collect back the money from the Allen settlement.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Wow Waysider – that never occurred to me !!!!
I think you’ve got reason # 115 of why PFAL sucks…and I’ll cover your stretched coffee tab.
115. Contradictory ideas in PFAL go unnoticed due to the compartmentalization factor of the “PFAL-mindset”.
In a PFAL session wierwille taught the Old Testament was not written to us – from which one can logically surmise the laws, promises, directives, and even the tithing system are not applicable to us. Yet in a class collateral, wierwille pivots by saying something along the lines of us taking advantage of the age of grace so God will do even more for us.
See also Compartmentalization (psychology) - Wikipedia , Compartmentalization | Psychology Today
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
If I recall correctly, I think it was Raf who pointed this out several years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
116. Saint Vic knew how to capture the youth: just pick the most radical theories and make them a part of your spin on religion, i.e., four crucified, anti-trinity, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Not sure which item number this fits under in this thread.
I have a few pressing projects tying up most of my time these days, especially with the holidays happening. But I’ve also had more time to think about some things.
It has been a puzzle to me why people are so upset with “The Bible interprets itself,” but I think I am finally understanding some of it.
First let me tell you why I liked it, upon first hearing it.
I am sure I NEVER took it to be literal, but took it as a figure of speech right from the start. And the first thing it told me had nothing to do with the many details that followed, which eventually explained the figure of speech to my complete satisfaction.
What “the Bible interprets itself” FIRST says to me is that there is really only ONE Author of that book.
How I quickly arrived at that, upon my first exposures to the phrase, I’ll leave as a temporary mystery for you all, since I said time is short, especially today.
I probably first heard this phrase from teenagers at my first twig, then 8 weeks later read the PFAL book, and then 4 months later took the film class. We didn’t have SNT tapes then, because they were reel to reel.
*/*/*/*/*
Tell me if I am wrong, but I sense that you all took the phrase to be literal, in the sense that the Bible was like an intricate machine or computer, and that IT did all the work of interpreting, leaving us readers with nothing to interpret.
This reminds me of a joke a couple of my airline friends have told me over the years, and that I hear in the media now at times. The cockpit area of modern airliners are SO AUTOMATED that they only need one pilot to fly it, and one dog to accompany him. The dog’s job is to bite the hand of the of the pilot if he tries to touch any of the controls.
I get the impression that the first take you folks had on hearing with “The Bible interprets itself” was the Bible was like a machine that was SO AUTOMATED that we human readers need do nothing for the interpretation. And if we try, a dog might bite us.
That is like saying, that there are only two possibilities:
either we can perform a private interpretation, or we can perform NO INTERPRETATION at all. And if we want avoid having Tick bite us in the hand, we must choose “no interpretation.”
I have never thought that way.
On first hearing this teaching and then the many details that followed, it was obvious to me that the Bible was not an automated interpreting machine at all.
It was obvious that I had a lot of work to do (not automated) in order for my interpreting performance to NOT be a private interpretation, but a PROPER interpretation, a rightly-divided interpretation.
The way I avoid a private interpretation is to follow the 80 some pages in the book on HOW the “The Bible interprets itself.”
If I follow those steps and avail myself of the resources WITHIN the Bible for my interpreting work, that can help me avoid a private interpretation.
A private interpretation is one where I do NOT avail myself of the resources within the Bible for this, but look within MY OWN resources for the interpretation.
*/*/*/*
Another analogy of the false model for understanding “The Bible interprets itself” is a topic we discussed before. This false model of an automated Bible, that has the ability to interpret for us like a machine or computer, has befuddled some here, I sense.
This other analogy I have in mind is called a “Formal System” in mathematics that was being discussed in the late 1800s and early 1900s. A formal system was a theoretical math machine that could prove mathematical theorems and proofs. It was a theoretical Logic Machine. It could do math jobs that were too difficult for humans to do.
They were using this “math machine” to find and prove all of mathematical truth. Kinda sounds like a Bible that interprets itself?
Godel’s Theorems in 1933 completely busted this logic machine idea. I was fascinated by Godel before I took the class. Maybe this is why I knew right off the bat that “The Bible interprets itself” had to be a figure of speech.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
We can always assign this a new number
Reason # 117 of why PFAL sucks
117. true devotees of PFAL become unscrupulous in their efforts to defend it
I think you’re wrong in your mischaracterization of how students fell for wierwille’s con of the Bible interprets itself. He led us to believe if you follow some simple rules – that he got from Bullinger, you can’t go wrong. There’s a compound problem with wierwille’s plagiarism. He was inconsistent in following someone else’s ideas – sometimes ignoring a key point and sometimes mixing in his own stupid ideas. PFAL students ABSORBED RATHER THAN ANALYZED wierwille’s method for interpreting the Bible.
In Bullinger’s book “How to Enjoy the Bible” Bullinger says in regard to the phrase “of any private interpretation”, is that the little word “of” is genitive of origin – and is simply saying Scripture wasn’t CONCEIVED by anyone’s imagination or personal interpretation. Bullinger goes on from there to cover some basic hermeneutics – which is the study of the methodological principles of interpretation of the Bible. I believe Bullinger got that part right.
In PFAL however, wierwille muddied up II Peter 1:20 and said The Bible should not be privately interpretated – in other words, it’s a no-no to have or offer a personal interpretation or opinion……there is to be no “I think it means this”. wierwille goes on to say that if no private interpretation is allowed then there is either no possible interpretation or the Bible must interpret itself. If you’ve ever studied logical fallacies, then it shouldn’t surprise you that wierwille’s premise offers PFAL students a false dilemma - also referred to as false dichotomy – it is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available.
Just pause for a moment and think about what an affront that is to logic, linguistics, historians, sociologists, anthropologists, and philosophers – not to mention Bible scholars, translators and textual researchers. We’re talking about a compilation of 66 different books written by 40 different authors over the course of an approximately 1500-year period, using basically 3 different languages, spanning a variety of cultural, political, and geographical settings. Needless to say, wierwille's idea that the Bible interprets itself is silly...absurd...laughable...and I can't believe I actually bought into it at one point in my life. In my defense I will say I was young and naïve. critical thinking schmitical thinking.
The reason “Scripture interprets itself” is nonsensical – is because 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.
Interpreter: responsible for facilitating communication between different language speakers by translating information from one language to another for easy comprehension.
Note in all the above definitions there is an intermediary or go-between involved - a person who acts as a link between people of different languages. The ancient biblical manuscripts were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. A translator of those texts is building a bridge to connect disparate people of another time, culture and language with people of today who speak English, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, Hindi, 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 approaching exposition of the Bible, paying attention to the verse, context, previous usage, etc. It’s a given that our cognitive skills are involved rather than expecting inanimate words on a page to do the job. It’s as if Bullinger was saying "To properly understand and to honestly teach what is the message of a certain passage this is HOW YOU should interpret the Bible".
Neither Bullinger nor wierwille are the gold standard for interpreting the Bible! Another goofy interpretation principle Bullinger promoted and which wierwille copied was “scripture buildup” – and that’s how Bullinger came up with 4 crucified – and wierwille plagiarized that too!
Maybe you need to reevaluate 4 crucified and a lot of the other suspect doctrines of wierwille and try to have an intellectually honest approach to Scripture instead of trying to insinuate we misunderstood what wierwille taught. What he taught was wrong – end of story!
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Im pretty sure he reworded this statement from the Introduction of How to Enjoy the Bible:
"OPEN THE BOOK"
and let it speak for itself, with the full conviction that if this can be done it can speak more
loudly, and more effectively for itself, than any man can speak on its behalf.
of course Bullinger followed up with this next paragraph:
May the Lord deign to use these pages, and make them to be that "guide" to a better
understanding and a greater enjoyment of His own Word.
Obviously Bullinger wasn't saying the Bible intreprets itself and in fact that phrase isn't found in How to Enjoy the Bible. I have an electronic copy and searched that phrase...its a big 0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Riiiiiiiiiight.
It has?
No one is upset.
Again, no one's upset. That's all there is to understand about that.
Good for you. Sounds like you are quite satisfied with your own private interpretations of victor's verbiage. Bravo! So proud of ya.
Is that your own private interpretation of what it FIRST says to you? Strange. That's not at all what the sentence itself says.
Thanks.
So what?
You're wrong.
Ha ha!! "Airline fiends."
You got the wrong impression.
That's kinda what "The Bible interprets itself" is saying.
You haven't?
We all crawl before we walk. Proud of ya!
More accurately: HOW (H-OW) to interpret the Bible, according to victor's schema. Why is victor's private interpretation better than your own?
The resources WITHIN? Resources? Within?
Like the "resources" WITHIN a Borges poem, a Steely Dan song, or a Terrence Malick film?
This makes no sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I read all of you post...but honestly...nothing you say after this sentence is worth reading. Why? Because you set up a straw man and address it as if it's real. Nobody here is upset over anything. If anything you are projecting your upsettedness out onto others who dare challenge wierwille. But seriously...why set up a logic fallacy straight out the gate?
Then you lurk for several days only to come back with the same bullshonta, except you try the strawman approach? Yeah...hows that working out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yes - I agree that's why I said wierwille erroneously bastardized Bullinger's works
erroneously = in a mistaken way; incorrectly; Synonyms: amiss, faultily, improperly
bastardized = (of a version of something) lower in quality or value than the original form, typically as a result of the addition of new elements; SIMILAR: adulterate, corrupt, contaminate, weaken, dilute, spoil,
taint, pollute, foul, defile, debase, degrade, devalue, depreciate
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sorry, for my strong language.
What word would work for you, in stead of upset?
How about "concerned" or "against" or "in opposition to"
The ideas that follow that sentence have nothing to do with anyone being really upset emotionally.
I meant intellectually upset, in the sense that you had in your lifestyle of thinking at one time, and then you "up set" it and took it out of your lifestyle of thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Has to be no.42. If something else had that number, well, it needs a different number.
Because, doncha know, that's the answer to the ultimate question of life, the Universe, and Everything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Again - nobody is concerned, against, or in opposition to anything. Because you use synonyms doesn't negate the logic fallacy. Disagreement doesn't really have to carry any of these elements. I just simply disagree with no emotional attachement at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The interpretation of the sentence "the Bible interprets itself," according to the resources WITHIN the sentence, is: the only valid interpretation of the Bible is victor's.
When one turns away from idolatry and error and makes a free will choice to love God, Truth, one can understand the sinister meaning of this devilish doctrine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You really know where your towel is. Watch out for Vogons.
I was in a philosophy class and the professor made the mistake of asking the class, "Haven't you ever wondered what the answer is to life, the universe, everything?"
Without even thinking three of us answered: "42!"
Don't panic. Mostly harmless.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
...and
Glad you asked for help on this.
"within the Bible" refers to things like "used before" and "context" and "scripture buildup." It could even include subtle things like asking God in prayer for help. There are lots of things this phrase refers to. Look at those 80 some pages in the PFAL book to refresh your memory for more examples of what "within the Bible means."
"within MY OWN resources" refers to my private desire for what I'd like it to say. There are many religious people who think this private desire thing or feeling is God talking to them directly, and that they need not worry much about what the printed words say. There are many examples of private resources, but like I said, I am short on time these days. Sometimes private resources could mean far out non-Christian religious writings that I personally favor. What these resources all have in common is they all are NOT from within the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
In other words, literally letting the bible interprets itself.
Like what Saint Vic did when he stole everyone else's work. He used HIS opinion to decide what was true and what was false.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
“Scripture buildup” is totally bogus - it depends on what wierwille says is relevant- that’s how Bullinger conjured up 4 crucified - and wierwille copied Bullinger’s stupid trick. 4 crucified is just stupid!
Do you ever wonder why you’ve lost credibility here? Hint: defending blatant error has something to do with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
More accurately,
The interpretation of the sentence "the Bible interprets itself," according to the resources WITHIN the sentence, is: the only valid interpretation of the Bible is victor's.
When one turns away from idolatry and error and makes a free will choice to love God, Truth, one can understand the sinister meaning of this devilish doctrine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Can anyone see how I arrived at this BEFORE hearing the teaching of HOW the Bible interprets itself (80 pages worth in the PFAL book) ?
If the Bible were NOT of one Author, then it could not really interpret itself. THAT would make the phrase we're discussing ridiculous, if it were true.
Could it be that THIS is the smoking gun for what all the non-upset hoopla is about?
Do some want the Bible to be NOT of one Author, but of segmented authorship, and no real, together, consistent "itself" to "do" the interpreting?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Got...
...to...
...make... it...
...FIT!
The Bible doesn't have one author. This is obvious to anyone who has ever studied the Bible.
When you say Author, you me victor's god? Why do you capitalize Author?
Edited by Nathan_JrGloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Another straw man argument
the Bible is coauthored - God inspired humans.
whether one considers the Bible as a single author book or coauthored - it still needs to be interpreted!!!!
what a goofball argument- the only upset hoopla is something you are projecting- you’re probably upset that you’ve worked on this angle for weeks…months …and still no one is buying it…oh well
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.