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 meaning. Surely we can see that this is a basic reason for many different denominations. They have different interpretations of Scripture.
People interpret books and make decisions about what the books mean based on lots of factors, such as the times in which the book was written. We're talking about reading literature here.
I'll say the obvious: Bibles are collections of pieces of literature. BTW, some Bibles have different pieces of literature in them compared with other Bibles.
People who understand what literature is and who were not brainwashed by Wierwille, realize that books don't "interpret themselves." People interpret books.
But because many of us who were vulnerable PFAL students and considered VPW as some great Biblical scholar, when he said that nonsense, many of us believed it. BTW, he's not the only Bible teacher who passes along that thoughtless statement.
In Undertow I show my experience in realizing that books don't interpret themselves, people interpret books. I highlighted that point mainly for readers who were indoctrinated in The Way. Readers who never bought into Wierwille's propaganda know that already.
Great post, Penworks!
Let’s make that reason # 67 of why PFAL sucks:
67. wierwille / PFAL or any class isn’t the only way to interpret the Bible.
A. It is the responsibility of the reader to interpret what he or she is reading
67. wierwille / PFAL or any class isn’t the only way to interpret the Bible.
A. It is the responsibility of the reader to interpret what he or she is reading
No matter whose responsibility it might be, the READER does interpret what s/he reads. Wierwille just wanted to gaslight, or had no idea who was responsible, PFLAP zombies into delegating the responsibility to him. What happens when the "zombies" so delegate? Confusion and every evil work, perhaps? Not my fault, I was only doing (and believing what I was told... and one can't go any farther than they're taught, right?).
vpw's entire premise of the Bible interpreting itself was based on a False Dilemma- that there were exactly 2 possibilities AND NO MORE-
1) the Bible had no interpretation
2) the Bible interpreted ITSELF
Surely, EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN RIGHT, no "private' interpretation would have meant there was a "PUBLIC" interpretation. (That bugged me a long time ago.)
All of that's academic- since vpw was wrong about what that meant. Since he used the archaic KJV's wording, he was able to twist things to sound like they meant what he wanted- even if the Greek was completely different or the Hebrew was.
In this case, as GSC regulars know, the verses were talking about HOW WE GOT THE SCRIPTURES, their ORIGIN. They said NOTHING about how we are to approach them. The word "interpretation" was an awful translation- which is obvious when vpw claims that "private interpretation" is "one's own letting-loose like you let loose the dogs on a hunt." There was nothing about "interpreting" in vpw's colorful digression into dogs on a hunt.
42 minutes ago, Rocky said:
No matter whose responsibility it might be, the READER does interpret what s/he reads. Wierwille just wanted to gaslight, or had no idea who was responsible, PFLAP zombies into delegating the responsibility to him. What happens when the "zombies" so delegate? Confusion and every evil work, perhaps? Not my fault, I was only doing (and believing what I was told... and one can't go any farther than they're taught, right?).
Yeah – I can see that – maybe similar to alearned helplessnessthing - in that when students are stuck in the false dilemmaWordWolf talked about ( either there isno interpretation possibleorit must interpret itself ) if one is not aware of the false dichotomy and that other interpretations are possible they will be “forced” to go with it interprets itself…I don’t know if that’s what you had in mind – but that’s the reason I bought into it back then.
65. Taking classes from teachers with no formal background in the languages studied and with no theological background and either no accredited education or education in other fields not Bible study opens the student up for establishing a habit pattern of exegetical fallacies. You can find many of these directly in the class.
On 10/26/2022 at 11:49 AM, WordWolf said:
vpw's entire premise of the Bible interpreting itself was based on a False Dilemma- that there were exactly 2 possibilities AND NO MORE-
1) the Bible had no interpretation
2) the Bible interpreted ITSELF
Surely, EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN RIGHT, no "private' interpretation would have meant there was a "PUBLIC" interpretation. (That bugged me a long time ago.)
All of that's academic- since vpw was wrong about what that meant. Since he used the archaic KJV's wording, he was able to twist things to sound like they meant what he wanted- even if the Greek was completely different or the Hebrew was.
In this case, as GSC regulars know, the verses were talking about HOW WE GOT THE SCRIPTURES, their ORIGIN. They said NOTHING about how we are to approach them. The word "interpretation" was an awful translation- which is obvious when vpw claims that "private interpretation" is "one's own letting-loose like you let loose the dogs on a hunt." There was nothing about "interpreting" in vpw's colorful digression into dogs on a hunt.
On 10/26/2022 at 6:06 AM, penworks said:
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 meaning. Surely we can see that this is a basic reason for many different denominations. They have different interpretations of Scripture.
People interpret books and make decisions about what the books mean based on lots of factors, such as the times in which the book was written. We're talking about reading literature here.
I'll say the obvious: Bibles are collections of pieces of literature. BTW, some Bibles have different pieces of literature in them compared with other Bibles.
People who understand what literature is and who were not brainwashed by Wierwille, realize that books don't "interpret themselves." People interpret books.
But because many of us who were vulnerable PFAL students and considered VPW as some great Biblical scholar, when he said that nonsense, many of us believed it. BTW, he's not the only Bible teacher who passes along that thoughtless statement.
In Undertow I show my experience in realizing that books don't interpret themselves, people interpret books. I highlighted that point mainly for readers who were indoctrinated in The Way. Readers who never bought into Wierwille's propaganda know that already.
On 10/19/2022 at 11:49 PM, WordWolf said:
17. It often contains errors that are the byproduct of pretending that the over 400-years old, obsolete King James Version is authoritative in aiding our understanding, as if the KJV word usage was consistent within itself and consistent with modern usage. Probably the most obvious of those errors was hanging an entire doctrine on the KJV usage of the word "replenish" in Genesis 3, when the Hebrew word from which it was taken should be translated "fill" and not "replenish." However, since this error matched what vpw wanted it to say, he went with it. Furthermore, "throughly" is an archaic word that DOES mean "thoroughly" and there is NO DIFFERENCE between their definitions- even though vpw made up an explanation of their differences.
18. II Peter 1: 20-21
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
===========================
vpw made a big deal out of these verses meaning we aren't to do any "private interpretation"- complete with his own, made-up explanation of what that supposedly meant. However, these verses explained the ORIGIN of the verses- they didn't show up because someone sat in a corner and decided to write something on his own, but with input from God Almighty directing him. There's nothing in them about how we are to approach the Bible.
[For those arriving late, I'm just repeating points that were posted over 20 years ago in both examples, and not by me originally.]
On 10/20/2022 at 2:50 PM, Nathan_Jr said:
53. Because the genitive is not the only case.
On 10/20/2022 at 3:53 PM, fredgrant said:
56. Because someone who threw out all their biblical research materials still wants to be called "Dr".
A. One of our greatest assets is the ability to think and choose a response.
FYI – reason # 68 of why PFAL sucks was inspired by the posts of Nathan_Jr, FredGrant, Chockfull, WordWolf and Penworks…just fessin’ up to my plagiarism … and if you think that’s bad wait till you get to what I stole from the internetbwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
In PFAL, wierwille suggests there are only two options to what “no Scripture is of private interpretation” means. This PFAL session is a great example of what an incompetent plagiarist does.
wierwille stole and mangled an idea from Bullinger. In Bullinger’s book “How to Enjoy the Bible” what Bullinger says regarding 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.
For whatever dumb and deceitful reason wierwille pivoted on the word “of” – and since I’m no longer hypnotized by wierwille’s dramatic word fvckery - it’s just about impossible to make any sense out of what he was saying. His usage is a very awkward contortion to have it mean prophecy should not be taken up by private interpretation, or it should not be associated with one’s own interpretation. ( * see footnotes on the word “of” below).
~ ~ ~ ~
Here's some excerpts from commentaries onII Peter 1:20(and I have the hyperlink at the end of the excerpts so you can read them for yourself)
Is of any private interpretation - the word rendered “interpretation” occurs nowhere else in the New Testament; but the cognate verb occurs in Mark 4:34, where it is translated “expound.” There can be little doubt that “interpretation,” or “solution,” is the right rendering here…The main question however, is the meaning of the word rendered “private,” which may also mean “its own.” Hence three explanations are possible.
The term may refer (1) to the recipients of the prophecies—that we may not expound prophecy according to our own fancy; or
(2) to the utterers of the prophecies—that the prophets had not the power of expounding their own prophecies; or
(3) to the prophecies themselves—that no prophecy comes to be of its own interpretation, i.e., no prophecy explains itself. The guide to the right explanation is2Peter 1:21, which gives the reason why“no prophecy of the scripture,” &c. This consideration excludes (3); for2Peter 1:21yields no sense as showing why prophecy does not interpret itself. Either of the other two explanations may be right.
(1) If prophecy came “by the will of man,” then it might be interpreted according to man’s fancy. But it did not so come; consequently, the interpretation must be sought elsewhere—viz., at the same source from which the prophecy itself proceeded.
(2) If the prophets spoke just as they pleased, they would be the best exponents of what they meant. But they spoke under divine influence, and therefore need not know the import of their own words. Prophecy must be explained by prophecy and by history, not by the individual prophet. The whole body of prophecy, “the prophetic word”(2Peter 1:19), is our lamp in the wilderness, not the private dicta of any one seer. In modern phraseology, interpretation must be comparative and scientific.
This view is strengthened by comparing1Peter 1:10-12, where it is stated that the prophets did not know how or when their own predictions would be fulfilled. Possibly this passage is meant to refer to1Peter 1:10-12, and if so, we have a mark of genuineness; a forger would have made the reference more clear. If the coincidence is accidental, this also points in the same direction; in any case, the coincidence is worth noting…
…It would be easy to show that some of these opinions are absurd, and that none of them are sustained by the fair interpretation of the language used, and by the drift of the passage.
The more correct interpretation, as it seems to me, is that which supposes that the apostle teaches that the truths which the prophets communicated were not originated by themselves; were not of their own suggestion or invention; were not their own opinions, but were of higher origin, and were imparted by God; and according to this the passage may be explained, "knowing this as a point of first importance when you approach the prophecies, or always bearing this in mind, that it is a great principle in regard to the prophets, that what they communicated "was not of their own disclosure;" that is, was not revealed or originated by them." That this is the correct interpretation will be apparent from the following considerations:
(1) It accords with the design of the apostle, which is to produce an impressive sense of the importance and value of the prophecies, and to lead those to whom he wrote to study them with diligence. This could be secured in no way so well as by assuring them that the writings which he wished them to study did not contain truths originated by the human mind, but that they were of higher origin.
(2) this interpretation accords with what is said in the following verse and is the only one of all those proposed that is consistent with that, or in connection with which that verse will have any force. In that verse2 Peter 1:21, a reason is given for what is said here: "For (γὰρ gar) the prophecy came not in old time "by the will of man,"" etc. But this can be a good reason for what is said here only on the supposition that the apostle meant to say that what they communicated was not originated by themselves; that it was of a higher than human origin; that the prophets spake "as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
This fact was a good reason why they should show profound respect for the prophecies, and study them with attention. But how could the fact that "they were moved by the Holy Ghost" be a reason for studying them, if the meaning here is that the prophets could not understand their own language, or that the prophecy could be understood only by the event, or that the prophecy had a double meaning, etc.? If the prophecies were of Divine origin, then "that" was a good reason why they should be approached with reverence and should be profoundly studied.
(3) this interpretation accords as well, to say the least, with the fair meaning of the language employed, as either of the other opinions proposed.
The word rendered "interpretation" (ἐπίλυσις epilusis) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means "solution" (Robinson's Lexicon), "disclosure," (Prof. Stuart on the Old Testament, p. 328,) "making free (Passow,)" with the notion that what is thus released or loosed was before bound, entangled obscure. The verb from which this word is derived (ἐπιλύω epiluō) means, "to let loose upon," as dogs upon a hare, (Xen. Mem. 7, 8; ib 9, 10;) to loose or open letters; to loosen a band; to loose or disclose a riddle or a dark saying, and then to enlighten, illustrate, etc. - Passow. It is twice used in the New Testament. Mark 4:34, "he expounded all things to his disciples";Acts 19:39, "It shall be determined in a lawful assembly."
The verb would be applicable to loosing anything which is bound or confined, and thence to the explanation of a mysterious doctrine or a parable, or to a disclosure of what was before unknown. The word, according to this, in the place before us, would mean the disclosure of what was before bound, or retained, or unknown; either what had never been communicated at all, or what had been communicated obscurely; and the idea is, "no prophecy recorded in the Scripture is of, or comes from, any exposition or disclosure of the will and purposes of God by the prophets themselves." It is not a thing of their own, or a private matter originating with themselves, but it is to be traced to a higher source.
If this be the true interpretation, then it follows that the prophecies are to be regarded as of higher than any human origin; and then, also, it follows that this passage should not be used to prove that the prophets did not understand the nature of their own communications, or that they were mere unconscious and passive instruments in the hand of God to make known his will.
Whatever may be the truth on those points, this passage proves nothing in regard to them, any mare than the fact that a minister of religion now declares truth which he did not originate, but which is to be traced to God as its author, proves that he does not understand what he himself says.
It follows, also, that this passage cannot be adduced by the Papists to prove that the people at large should not have free access to the word of God, and should not be allowed to interpret it for themselves. It makes no affirmation on that point, and does not even contain any "principle" of which such a use can be made; for:
(1) Whatever it means, it is confined to "prophecy;" it does not embrace the whole Bible.
(2) whatever it means, it merely states a fact; it does not enjoin a duty. It states, as a fact, that there was something about the prophecies which was not of private solution, but it does not state that it is the duty of the church to prevent any private explanation or opinion even of the prophecies.
(3) it says nothing about "the church" as empowered to give a public or authorized interpretation of the prophecies. There is not a hint, or an intimation of any kind, that the church is intrusted with any such power whatever. There never was any greater perversion of a passage of Scripture than to suppose that this teaches that any class of people is not to have free access to the Bible.
The effect of the passage, properly interpreted, should be to lead us to study the Bible with profound reverence, as having a higher than any human origin, not to turn away from it as if it were unintelligible, nor to lead us to suppose that it can be interpreted only by one class of men. The fact that it discloses truths which the human mind could not of itself have originated, is a good reason for studying it with diligence and with prayer - not for supposing that it is unlawful for us to attempt to understand it; a good reason for reverence and veneration for it - not for sanctified neglect.
PS: In case you’re wondering about the numbering and subset lettering on this thread – it was just a gimmick that made me be more concise, to the point and to show any correlation. It’s no big deal – readers and posters should feel free to interpret this thread any way they want to.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
PPS: can you believe it ? look how long this post is! And it’s just on wierwille’s screwy misinterpretation of the phrase “of any private interpretation” – but wait there’s more! Think of how many other posts…threads have handled this same point. The moral of the story – it often takes a lot of work to unravel the gnarly knots of a cult-leader’s whatnots.
Edited by T-Bone No typo is of any group consensus – I made these blunders all by my lonesome
In conjunction with Tbones breaking down the private interpretation fallacy, we have
68. Teaches about prophecy while being clueless about prophecy.
The Way interprets 1 Cor 12-14 to mean that prophecy is either the robotic method of producing 3rd person speeches taught in the INT class OR get this a special kind of autonomous speech that could contain foretelling if the BOD had designated that person as a prophet “gift ministry” earned by smooching booty and established by back room ceremonies.
Having heard an over abundance of these 3rd person speeches I no longer believe them to be a message directly from God to the people in the room but rather the person exercising their vocabulary extemporaneously like they do on a couple comic shows improvisation. And one more means of establishing control over an individual. Most of the time these speeches served to magnify the speaker in some fashion.
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 meaning. Surely we can see that this is a basic reason for many different denominations. They have different interpretations of Scripture.
People interpret books and make decisions about what the books mean based on lots of factors, such as the times in which the book was written. We're talking about reading literature here.
I'll say the obvious: Bibles are collections of pieces of literature. BTW, some Bibles have different pieces of literature in them compared with other Bibles.
People who understand what literature is and who were not brainwashed by Wierwille, realize that books don't "interpret themselves." People interpret books.
But because many of us who were vulnerable PFAL students and considered VPW as some great Biblical scholar, when he said that nonsense, many of us believed it. BTW, he's not the only Bible teacher who passes along that thoughtless statement.
In Undertow I show my experience in realizing that books don't interpret themselves, people interpret books. I highlighted that point mainly for readers who were indoctrinated in The Way. Readers who never bought into Wierwille's propaganda know that already.
Hi Charlene,
I don’t think we ever met here at GreaseSpot, but I am sure we did meet once or twice briefly at Rye NY, or at HQ a few years later; maybe both.
You probably did not know me much in either setting, because there were hundreds of others at those scenes to try and get to know. At Rye I was in the slow-lane socially, and regrettably the stereotypical science nerd, so I surely blended into the woodwork for you.At HQ we never interacted because I was a non-Corps second class citizen there, and I lived in town, not on the farm. But we both saw a lot of the same things; albeit from vastly differing vantage points as time progressed.
My take on hearing that the Bible interprets itself is entirely different from yours, or at least what I picked up from you in this one post of yours.
I remember getting the Kindle version of your book and in skimming it, I found a place there where you mention the same thing (objecting to the Bible interprets itself), and it kinda shut down my reading for a long time.I just picked it up again today, and am not skim reading, just going slow.
There was another reason I put your book down a couple of years ago. It made me verklempt for the good old days, where we got to see things work on the field, relatively unsupervised.
*/*/*/*
But this recent post by you seems to say that your objection to “the Bible interprets itself” is much deeper than I had previously thought.This tells me that maybe you just didn’t quite understand what was meant by that part of PFAL.
I have spent 20 years here at GreaseSpot constantly pointing out that some of the things we were taught in the class were forgotten, and/or that some of the things we were taught in the class sailed right over our heads, and we never got them.
The way I do this here at GreaseSpot is by pasting in long transcripts from the film class, or pages from the collaterals.
But when I looked up “the Bible interprets itself” in my PFAL book I saw that it covered pages 145 thru 225.That’s a lot of homework for me to think of bringing to this discussion.
So let’s try a super summary.
My take on the good gist of “the Bible interprets itself” is this:
It shows in a practical way how there is only one Author of the Bible, even though the writers are widely scattered in time, geography, and culture.
*/*/*/*/*
What we were taught in the “the Bible interprets itself” teaching is a CLAIM that the Bible has one Author, and that He is interested in transmitting His message to us so that we can have something BETTER than anything we could come up with.
The separateness of God’s writers does not thwart the Author’s ability to make clear what He wants to be clear to us. We were promised in PFAL that God put keys and sign posts in His Word so that we can discover HIS interpretation of His words to us.
My impression, so far, is that it is your position that VPW was claiming that the Bible pretty much automatically interprets itself in a simple and complete way.It’s just unzips itself in a simple mechanical way, and there is hardly any work to be done to ferret out the correct interpretations?
There are lots of places where is seems pretty difficult to find how the Bible interprets itself. But then there are the places where this method works pretty well.
It would take me some time to verify this, but I don’t think the PFAL book ever says all of the Bible interprets itself.But I could use the review.The film class transcript on this is probably longer, but worth looking at.Sometimes VPW would say something in a contorted way in the film class, and later it got straightened out in the book. But unfortunately, most grads seemed to memorize the film class soundtrack more than the book.That happened a lot.
But anyway, I just thought I’d run this by you in case I got your position wrong.
My most important thought here, at the moment, is that it is very good to know the Bible is a cohesive whole, and that it CAN interpret itself, due to it having only one Author, expressing Himself in the vocabularies and writing styles of His many helpers, who were widely scattered in time, geography, and culture.
*/*/*/*
As time permits, I’d like to discuss your analysis of literature and interpretation. I’ve done some looking into popular song lyrics this way.It is an interesting topic, how some authors purposely make their works indecipherable, and thus generating hundreds of interpretations.
SNL comedy sketches have gotten laughs out this phenomenon of some song writers having deliberate disdain at their fan’s idiotic interpretations, and that they feed these fans gibberish for entertainment.
I remember getting the Kindle version of your book and in skimming it, I found a place there where you mention the same thing (objecting to the Bible interprets itself), and it kinda shut down my reading for a long time.
Out of curiosity, where you skimming for something you didn't agree with, found it, and shut your mind down because her book challenges the validity of your cult leader and his cult?
Oh sweet, Mikey is patronizing penworks. I’m sure this will go well
I think Mikey is the one who may have forgotten the PFAL where VP gets animated and goes on for an hour about how the Word interprets itself in the verse in the context, where it is used before. No shell game can make that disappear.
In the positive takeaways from getting away from PFAL, now we no longer have to twist our brains into more positions than the Twister game to try and justify fundamentalism.
You see, if there as is there actually is in reality, 40 authors and one muse, as opposed to one author and 40 conduits, all of that pressure in the brain to try and fit square pegs into round holes just dissipates.
A secondary effect is you’re less likely to be duped by the well intentioned.
No the so called keys are a hoax. Used before is a different author so you cannot force fit things like VPs scriptural scribe acrobatics endeavor to.
No the so called keys are a hoax. Used before is a different author so you cannot force fit things like VPs scriptural scribe acrobatics endeavor to.
With those different writers, that later writer would almost always be familiar with the earlier writer. The Author knew what He was dealing with and coordinated the individual efforts so that the Bible would be a complete whole, with only one Author.
My take on hearing that the Bible interprets itself is entirely different from yours, or at least what I picked up from you in this one post of yours.
I remember getting the Kindle version of your book and in skimming it, I found a place there where you mention the same thing (objecting to the Bible interprets itself), and it kinda shut down my reading for a long time.I just picked it up again today, and am not skim reading, just going slow.
There was another reason I put your book down a couple of years ago. It made me verklempt for the good old days, where we got to see things work on the field, relatively unsupervised.
*/*/*/*
But this recent post by you seems to say that your objection to “the Bible interprets itself” is much deeper than I had previously thought.This tells me that maybe you just didn’t quite understand what was meant by that part of PFAL.
I have spent 20 years here at GreaseSpot constantly pointing out that some of the things we were taught in the class were forgotten, and/or that some of the things we were taught in the class sailed right over our heads, and we never got them.
The way I do this here at GreaseSpot is by pasting in long transcripts from the film class, or pages from the collaterals.
But when I looked up “the Bible interprets itself” in my PFAL book I saw that it covered pages 145 thru 225.That’s a lot of homework for me to think of bringing to this discussion.
Interesting – Mike's critique here is similar to the obfuscating response he gave me in 2018
I asked him on March 27th of 2018 if he read Undertow- see my post > here
and Mike replied the same day that he was reading it > here note the nonsensical critique of Undertow – Mike said, “The phraseThe Bible interprets itself" is an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea.She did not do that justice IMO”
I find this hilarious - the idea that "the Bible interprets itself" is the polar opposite of even an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea...there's nothing to it! the idea is an abbreviation for nonsense.
With those different writers, that later writer would almost always be familiar with the earlier writer. The Author knew what He was dealing with and coordinated the individual efforts so that the Bible would be a complete whole, with only one Author.
All of the later writers knew the Old Testament like the back of their hands....kinda gave God a lot more to work with.
Did God actually pen the words? No. And he actually allowed various authors to interject what they had tosay from time to time...such as Paul saying he was speaking by permission and not commandment. So --- it is between 35 and 40 authors and God credits them in the works themselves.
I find this hilarious - the idea that "the Bible interprets itself" is the polar opposite of even an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea...there's nothing to it! the idea is an abbreviation for nonsense.
That it is. God did not make the Bible complex where it takes some guru to intrepret it for us, like wanna be st vic. It's really a matter of opening up the book and reading the words. So why is scripture build-up, as fundies call it, so complex? For example: Does it take a scientist to take a concept and see how it develops through scripture, over time? Or is that more along the lines of basic common sense?
May as well adress this too. Wierwilleites like to say that secular history and secular works should be ignored in favor of scripture only. But how then do people with a western way of thinking understand an eastern book? Eastern people think way differently than those from the west who are influenced heavily by Greek and Latin. Greek for example, is especially precise in it's wording and descriptiveness - especially Koine Greek as opposed to Classical Greek. Eastern people tend to see thing pictorially and rely heavily on symbols, and emotion to communicate. (This split carries into Christian circles too with the differences in Eastern Orthodox Churches and Western Churches that spawned from Rome into Europe and beyond.)
Example: Jesus telling his disciples to pluck out their eye if it offends them. The emphasis of the figure of speech is on standing your ground and not allowing any offense to God in your life, as much as you are able, even to the point of plucking out an eyeball. Westerners typically tend to not communicate in this manner that was typical amongst middle eastern cultures. Perhaps a western way of expressing the same emphasis would be "Stand your ground against sin no matter the cost!"
So, Mike,how in the eff can I understand a book that is from half way around the world, loaded with Hebraic figures of speech, ancient history, etc. if I don't understand these basic tenets?
Interesting – Mike's critique here is similar to the obfuscating response he gave me in 2018
I asked him on March 27th of 2018 if he read Undertow
I pasted in below my entire response you referred to. It looks like I was in a tough mood then. Maybe from the heat of battle. I said roughly the same thing an hour or so ago.
On 3/27/2018 at 9:16 AM, T-Bone said:
Hey Mike,
i was wondering if you had a chance yet to read Penworks’ Undertow book
Mike responded with:
I have it and am slowly reading it.
My first objection, though, is how she objected to the idea that "the Bible interprets itself." I find that objection very dim witted, even when pumped up with detail like with the posters that attacked it 15 years ago here. It slowed down my reading, but I still intend to finish it. That interpretation issue lowered my expectations and the book's priority in my schedule.
In a nutshell: Imagine how quirky it is for God to issue His Word to communicate to us, but then He FAILS to put cues, keys, and signposts in there to guide sincere seekers. That sounds like a bad way to get a message out. It's like Him saying "I want you to know something but I will not help you understand it."
The phrase "The Bible interprets itself" is an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea. She did not do that justice IMO. The criticism this idea got here 15 years ago I thought was similarly lacking. My impression was that she was leading uninformed readers into thinking God is supposed to be mysterious, an old Catholic idea. Maybe her book will get better later.
If you can recommend a spot to skip ahead to I would appreciate seeing what you feel is an section important to me.
...SNIP... I remember getting the Kindle version of your book and in skimming it, I found a place there where you mention the same thing (objecting to the Bible interprets itself), and it kinda shut down my reading for a long time.I just picked it up again today, and am not skim reading, just going slow.
T-Bone's response: why does someone poking holes in wierwille's claim "the Bible interprets itself" shut you down?
There was another reason I put your book down a couple of years ago. It made me verklempt for the good old days, where we got to see things work on the field, relatively unsupervised.
T-Bone's response: in other words, if you followed the cult-leader's goofy instructions your little world was at peace.
*/*/*/*
But this recent post by you seems to say that your objection to “the Bible interprets itself” is much deeper than I had previously thought.This tells me that maybe you just didn’t quite understand what was meant by that part of PFAL.
I have spent 20 years here at GreaseSpot constantly pointing out that some of the things we were taught in the class were forgotten, and/or that some of the things we were taught in the class sailed right over our heads, and we never got them.
T-Bone's response: on the contrary - it seems I can recall PFAL a lot better than you - and I can tell that most of the time you bluff your way through saying we forgot stuff because when you try to "re-teach" it to us it's all twisted up...I have all the PFAL books 4 feet away from my desk where I'm typing right now - and don't even have to check them - because I recall them better than you do...my 2 years in residence was mainly cult-leaders drilling PFAL into our heads!
The way I do this here at GreaseSpot is by pasting in long transcripts from the film class, or pages from the collaterals.
But when I looked up “the Bible interprets itself” in my PFAL book I saw that it covered pages 145 thru 225.That’s a lot of homework for me to think of bringing to this discussion.
So let’s try a super summary.
My take on the good gist of “the Bible interprets itself” is this:
It shows in a practical way how there is only one Author of the Bible, even though the writers are widely scattered in time, geography, and culture.
T-Bone's response: your statement is confusing - author and writer are the same...that makes the Bible a co-authored book
T-Bone's response: why does someone poking holes in wierwille's claim "the Bible interprets itself" shut you down?
T-Bone's response: in other words, if you followed the cult-leader's goofy instructions your little world was at peace.
T-Bone's response: on the contrary - it seems I can recall PFAL a lot better than you - and I can tell that most of the time you bluff your way through saying we forgot stuff because when you try to "re-teach" it to us it's all twisted up...I have all the PFAL books 4 feet away from my desk where I'm typing right now - and don't even have to check them - because I recall them better than you do...my 2 years in residence was mainly cult-leaders drilling PFAL into our heads!
T-Bone's response: your statement is confusing - author and writer are the same...that makes the Bible a co-authored book
8 hours ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*/* What we were taught in the “the Bible interprets itself” teaching is a CLAIM that the Bible has one Author, and that He is interested in transmitting His message to us so that we can have something BETTER than anything we could come up with.
The separateness of God’s writers does not thwart the Author’s ability to make clear what He wants to be clear to us. We were promised in PFAL that God put keys and sign posts in His Word so that we can discover HIS interpretation of His words to us.
T-Bone's response: it wasn't "promised" in PFAL - it was CLAIMED in PFAL...how do you know when you've discovered God's interpretation of His own words? What if it's your own interpretation or your own bias...
you need to take another look at II Peter 1:20, 21 again - I'm not sure how you can miss it - it says "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."...that sure looks like co-authorship to me, and it does NOT address readers interpreting the Bible...it talks about the prophecy did not come about by the prophet's own interpretation of things!
My impression, so far, is that it is your position that VPW was claiming that the Bible pretty much automatically interprets itself in a simple and complete way.It’s just unzips itself in a simple mechanical way, and there is hardly any work to be done to ferret out the correct interpretations?
T-Bone's response: do you realize how stupid that sounds? then why were the original manuscripts needing to be translated into other languages? Why didn't God just demand everyone learn Hebrew? Then no translation needed for OT...or go with S. Aramaic or Koine Greek...come on, God pick a language and run with it!
T-Bone's response: it wasn't "promised" in PFAL - it was CLAIMED in PFAL...how do you know when you've discovered God's interpretation of His own words? What if it's your own interpretation or your own bias...
you need to take another look at II Peter 1:20, 21 again - I'm not sure how you can miss it - it says "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."...that sure looks like co-authorship to me, and it does NOT address readers interpreting the Bible...it talks about the prophecy did not come about by the prophet's own interpretation of things!
T-Bone's response: do you realize how stupid that sounds? then why were the original manuscripts needing to be translated into other languages? Why didn't God just demand everyone learn Hebrew? Then no translation needed for OT...or go with S. Aramaic or Koine Greek...come on, God pick a language and run with it!
8 hours ago, Mike said:
There are lots of places where is seems pretty difficult to find how the Bible interprets itself. But then there are the places where this method works pretty well.
It would take me some time to verify this, but I don’t think the PFAL book ever says all of the Bible interprets itself.But I could use the review.The film class transcript on this is probably longer, but worth looking at.Sometimes VPW would say something in a contorted way in the film class, and later it got straightened out in the book. But unfortunately, most grads seemed to memorize the film class soundtrack more than the book.
T-Bone's response: quit moving the goalposts! It's the same exact baloney in written form, video or audio! There's no nuance of baloney - when baloney is the only ingredient...come on - just face the music - wierwille was a con artist - and you bought into his baloney 100% - and you've invested so much now you're afraid to admit you've been conned.
That happened a lot. But anyway, I just thought I’d run this by you in case I got your position wrong.
My most important thought here, at the moment, is that it is very good to know the Bible is a cohesive whole, and that it CAN interpret itself, due to it having only one Author, expressing Himself in the vocabularies and writing styles of His many helpers, who were widely scattered in time, geography, and culture.
T-Bone's response: this sounds like something a 5-year-old would make up. Do you even realize how silly this sounds?
*/*/*/*
As time permits, I’d like to discuss your analysis of literature and interpretation. I’ve done some looking into popular song lyrics this way.It is an interesting topic, how some authors purposely make their works indecipherable, and thus generating hundreds of interpretations.
SNL comedy sketches have gotten laughs out this phenomenon of some song writers having deliberate disdain at their fan’s idiotic interpretations, and that they feed these fans gibberish for entertainment.
T-Bone's response: quit moving the goalposts! It's the same exact baloney in written form, video or audio! There's no nuance of baloney - when baloney is the only ingredient...come on - just face the music - wierwille was a con artist - and you bought into his baloney 100% - and you've invested so much now you're afraid to admit you've been conned.
T-Bone's response: this sounds like something a 5-year-old would make up. Do you even realize how silly this sounds?
6 hours ago, Mike said:
With those different writers, that later writer would almost always be familiar with the earlier writer. The Author knew what He was dealing with and coordinated the individual efforts so that the Bible would be a complete whole, with only one Author.
T-Bone's response: really? YOU know what the author knew? HOW did you know that?
5 hours ago, Mike said:
I pasted in below my entire response you referred to. It looks like I was in a tough mood then. Maybe from the heat of battle. I said roughly the same thing an hour or so ago.
On 3/27/2018 at 9:16 AM, T-Bone said:
Hey Mike,
i was wondering if you had a chance yet to read Penworks’ Undertow book
Mike responded with:
I have it and am slowly reading it.
My first objection, though, is how she objected to the idea that "the Bible interprets itself." I find that objection very dim witted, even when pumped up with detail like with the posters that attacked it 15 years ago here. It slowed down my reading, but I still intend to finish it. That interpretation issue lowered my expectations and the book's priority in my schedule.
In a nutshell: Imagine how quirky it is for God to issue His Word to communicate to us, but then He FAILS to put cues, keys, and signposts in there to guide sincere seekers. That sounds like a bad way to get a message out. It's like Him saying "I want you to know something but I will not help you understand it."
T-Bone's response: you're assuming God has hidden messages like you claim wierwille's teachings have. Personally, I'm glad God doesn't have a hidden agenda and He doesn't dodge our prayer requests and He doesn't formulate convoluted insane doctrines the way you seem to think He does...I'm sorry to say this but the god you talk about seems weird, mean, amoral, confused and dispassionate...
The phrase "The Bible interprets itself" is an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea. She did not do that justice IMO. The criticism this idea got here 15 years ago I thought was similarly lacking. My impression was that she was leading uninformed readers into thinking God is supposed to be mysterious, an old Catholic idea. Maybe her book will get better later.
T-Bone's response: Hold up! Hold up!!! stop the presses! would you please explain this complex idea in LONG FORM. In other words, expand the extremely abbreviated method so I can see in glorious detail how this method works.
For some reason I'm reminded of school days and how math teachers often caught cheaters who may have copied answers off someone. the teacher asks the cheater to show them their work...have the student write out the formulas and plug in the variables on the quiz and see if they can actually do it.
I find it odd that you say Penworks did not give a fair or accurate assessment of wierwille's claim that the Bible interprets itself - and yet you mischaracterize her point that it's up to the reader to interpret what they are reading...The glove is on the other foot, it seems to me YOU ARE the ONE wanting to lead uninformed readers into thinking the Bible is a mysterious book and one NEEDS pope wierwille to interpret it for them...(maybe wierwille was a closet-Roman Catholic - he sure liked to pontificate )
If you can recommend a spot to skip ahead to I would appreciate seeing what you feel is an section important to me.
T-Bone's response: You know what? I doubt if you've even read Undertow. So, you know what you can skip? Pushing this baloney any further.
T-Bone's response: you're assuming God has hidden messages like you claim wierwille's teachings have. Personally, I'm glad God doesn't have a hidden agenda and He doesn't dodge our prayer requests and He doesn't formulate convoluted insane doctrines the way you seem to think He does...I'm sorry to say this but the god you talk about seems weird, mean, amoral, confused and dispassionate...
T-Bone's response: Hold up! Hold up!!! stop the presses! would you please explain this complex idea in LONG FORM. In other words, expand the extremely abbreviated method so I can see in glorious detail how this method works.
For some reason I'm reminded of school days and how math teachers often caught cheaters who may have copied answers off someone. the teacher asks the cheater to show them their work...have the student write out the formulas and plug in the variables on the quiz and see if they can actually do it.
I find it odd that you say Penworks did not give a fair or accurate assessment of wierwille's claim that the Bible interprets itself - and yet you mischaracterize her point that it's up to the reader to interpret what they are reading...The glove is on the other foot, it seems to me YOU ARE the ONE wanting to lead uninformed readers into thinking the Bible is a mysterious book and one NEEDS pope wierwille to interpret it for them...(maybe wierwille was a closet-Roman Catholic - he sure liked to pontificate )
T-Bone's response: You know what? I doubt if you've even read Undertow. So, you know what you can skip? Pushing this baloney any further.
~ ~ ~ ~
Whether in the quotes or out of the quotes I know not
Edited by T-Bone typos that correct themselves...yeah that's the ticket!
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
Great post, Penworks!
Let’s make that reason # 67 of why PFAL sucks:
67. wierwille / PFAL or any class isn’t the only way to interpret the Bible.
A. It is the responsibility of the reader to interpret what he or she is reading
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
No matter whose responsibility it might be, the READER does interpret what s/he reads. Wierwille just wanted to gaslight, or had no idea who was responsible, PFLAP zombies into delegating the responsibility to him. What happens when the "zombies" so delegate? Confusion and every evil work, perhaps? Not my fault, I was only doing (and believing what I was told... and one can't go any farther than they're taught, right?).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yeah – I can see that – maybe similar to a learned helplessness thing - in that when students are stuck in the false dilemma WordWolf talked about ( either there is no interpretation possible or it must interpret itself ) if one is not aware of the false dichotomy and that other interpretations are possible they will be “forced” to go with it interprets itself…I don’t know if that’s what you had in mind – but that’s the reason I bought into it back then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
68. freedom is held hostage by all-or-nothing thinking
A. One of our greatest assets is the ability to think and choose a response.
FYI – reason # 68 of why PFAL sucks was inspired by the posts of Nathan_Jr, FredGrant, Chockfull, WordWolf and Penworks…just fessin’ up to my plagiarism
… and if you think that’s bad wait till you get to what I stole from the internet bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
In PFAL, wierwille suggests there are only two options to what “no Scripture is of private interpretation” means. This PFAL session is a great example of what an incompetent plagiarist does.
wierwille stole and mangled an idea from Bullinger. In Bullinger’s book “How to Enjoy the Bible” what Bullinger says regarding 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.
For whatever dumb and deceitful reason wierwille pivoted on the word “of” – and since I’m no longer hypnotized by wierwille’s dramatic word fvckery - it’s just about impossible to make any sense out of what he was saying. His usage is a very awkward contortion to have it mean prophecy should not be taken up by private interpretation, or it should not be associated with one’s own interpretation. ( * see footnotes on the word “of” below).
~ ~ ~ ~
Here's some excerpts from commentaries on II Peter 1:20 (and I have the hyperlink at the end of the excerpts so you can read them for yourself)
Is of any private interpretation - the word rendered “interpretation” occurs nowhere else in the New Testament; but the cognate verb occurs in Mark 4:34, where it is translated “expound.” There can be little doubt that “interpretation,” or “solution,” is the right rendering here…The main question however, is the meaning of the word rendered “private,” which may also mean “its own.” Hence three explanations are possible.
The term may refer (1) to the recipients of the prophecies—that we may not expound prophecy according to our own fancy; or
(2) to the utterers of the prophecies—that the prophets had not the power of expounding their own prophecies; or
(3) to the prophecies themselves—that no prophecy comes to be of its own interpretation, i.e., no prophecy explains itself. The guide to the right explanation is 2Peter 1:21, which gives the reason why “no prophecy of the scripture,” &c. This consideration excludes (3); for 2Peter 1:21 yields no sense as showing why prophecy does not interpret itself. Either of the other two explanations may be right.
(1) If prophecy came “by the will of man,” then it might be interpreted according to man’s fancy. But it did not so come; consequently, the interpretation must be sought elsewhere—viz., at the same source from which the prophecy itself proceeded.
(2) If the prophets spoke just as they pleased, they would be the best exponents of what they meant. But they spoke under divine influence, and therefore need not know the import of their own words. Prophecy must be explained by prophecy and by history, not by the individual prophet. The whole body of prophecy, “the prophetic word” (2Peter 1:19), is our lamp in the wilderness, not the private dicta of any one seer. In modern phraseology, interpretation must be comparative and scientific.
This view is strengthened by comparing 1Peter 1:10-12, where it is stated that the prophets did not know how or when their own predictions would be fulfilled. Possibly this passage is meant to refer to 1Peter 1:10-12, and if so, we have a mark of genuineness; a forger would have made the reference more clear. If the coincidence is accidental, this also points in the same direction; in any case, the coincidence is worth noting…
…It would be easy to show that some of these opinions are absurd, and that none of them are sustained by the fair interpretation of the language used, and by the drift of the passage.
The more correct interpretation, as it seems to me, is that which supposes that the apostle teaches that the truths which the prophets communicated were not originated by themselves; were not of their own suggestion or invention; were not their own opinions, but were of higher origin, and were imparted by God; and according to this the passage may be explained, "knowing this as a point of first importance when you approach the prophecies, or always bearing this in mind, that it is a great principle in regard to the prophets, that what they communicated "was not of their own disclosure;" that is, was not revealed or originated by them." That this is the correct interpretation will be apparent from the following considerations:
(1) It accords with the design of the apostle, which is to produce an impressive sense of the importance and value of the prophecies, and to lead those to whom he wrote to study them with diligence. This could be secured in no way so well as by assuring them that the writings which he wished them to study did not contain truths originated by the human mind, but that they were of higher origin.
(2) this interpretation accords with what is said in the following verse and is the only one of all those proposed that is consistent with that, or in connection with which that verse will have any force. In that verse 2 Peter 1:21, a reason is given for what is said here: "For (γὰρ gar) the prophecy came not in old time "by the will of man,"" etc. But this can be a good reason for what is said here only on the supposition that the apostle meant to say that what they communicated was not originated by themselves; that it was of a higher than human origin; that the prophets spake "as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
This fact was a good reason why they should show profound respect for the prophecies, and study them with attention. But how could the fact that "they were moved by the Holy Ghost" be a reason for studying them, if the meaning here is that the prophets could not understand their own language, or that the prophecy could be understood only by the event, or that the prophecy had a double meaning, etc.? If the prophecies were of Divine origin, then "that" was a good reason why they should be approached with reverence and should be profoundly studied.
(3) this interpretation accords as well, to say the least, with the fair meaning of the language employed, as either of the other opinions proposed.
The word rendered "interpretation" (ἐπίλυσις epilusis) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means "solution" (Robinson's Lexicon), "disclosure," (Prof. Stuart on the Old Testament, p. 328,) "making free (Passow,)" with the notion that what is thus released or loosed was before bound, entangled obscure. The verb from which this word is derived (ἐπιλύω epiluō) means, "to let loose upon," as dogs upon a hare, (Xen. Mem. 7, 8; ib 9, 10;) to loose or open letters; to loosen a band; to loose or disclose a riddle or a dark saying, and then to enlighten, illustrate, etc. - Passow. It is twice used in the New Testament. Mark 4:34, "he expounded all things to his disciples"; Acts 19:39, "It shall be determined in a lawful assembly."
The verb would be applicable to loosing anything which is bound or confined, and thence to the explanation of a mysterious doctrine or a parable, or to a disclosure of what was before unknown. The word, according to this, in the place before us, would mean the disclosure of what was before bound, or retained, or unknown; either what had never been communicated at all, or what had been communicated obscurely; and the idea is, "no prophecy recorded in the Scripture is of, or comes from, any exposition or disclosure of the will and purposes of God by the prophets themselves." It is not a thing of their own, or a private matter originating with themselves, but it is to be traced to a higher source.
If this be the true interpretation, then it follows that the prophecies are to be regarded as of higher than any human origin; and then, also, it follows that this passage should not be used to prove that the prophets did not understand the nature of their own communications, or that they were mere unconscious and passive instruments in the hand of God to make known his will.
Whatever may be the truth on those points, this passage proves nothing in regard to them, any mare than the fact that a minister of religion now declares truth which he did not originate, but which is to be traced to God as its author, proves that he does not understand what he himself says.
It follows, also, that this passage cannot be adduced by the Papists to prove that the people at large should not have free access to the word of God, and should not be allowed to interpret it for themselves. It makes no affirmation on that point, and does not even contain any "principle" of which such a use can be made; for:
(1) Whatever it means, it is confined to "prophecy;" it does not embrace the whole Bible.
(2) whatever it means, it merely states a fact; it does not enjoin a duty. It states, as a fact, that there was something about the prophecies which was not of private solution, but it does not state that it is the duty of the church to prevent any private explanation or opinion even of the prophecies.
(3) it says nothing about "the church" as empowered to give a public or authorized interpretation of the prophecies. There is not a hint, or an intimation of any kind, that the church is intrusted with any such power whatever. There never was any greater perversion of a passage of Scripture than to suppose that this teaches that any class of people is not to have free access to the Bible.
The effect of the passage, properly interpreted, should be to lead us to study the Bible with profound reverence, as having a higher than any human origin, not to turn away from it as if it were unintelligible, nor to lead us to suppose that it can be interpreted only by one class of men. The fact that it discloses truths which the human mind could not of itself have originated, is a good reason for studying it with diligence and with prayer - not for supposing that it is unlawful for us to attempt to understand it; a good reason for reverence and veneration for it - not for sanctified neglect.
From: Bible Hub: II Peter 1:20 commentaries
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
*footnotes on “of”:
The Free Dictionary: “of”
The Free Dictionary: list of prepositions
Wikipedia: genitive case
~ ~ ~ ~
PS: In case you’re wondering about the numbering and subset lettering on this thread – it was just a gimmick that made me be more concise, to the point and to show any correlation. It’s no big deal – readers and posters should feel free to interpret this thread any way they want to.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
PPS: can you believe it ? look how long this post is! And it’s just on wierwille’s screwy misinterpretation of the phrase “of any private interpretation” – but wait there’s more! Think of how many other posts…threads have handled this same point. The moral of the story – it often takes a lot of work to unravel the gnarly knots of a cult-leader’s whatnots.
Edited by T-BoneNo typo is of any group consensus – I made these blunders all by my lonesome
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
In conjunction with Tbones breaking down the private interpretation fallacy, we have
68. Teaches about prophecy while being clueless about prophecy.
The Way interprets 1 Cor 12-14 to mean that prophecy is either the robotic method of producing 3rd person speeches taught in the INT class OR get this a special kind of autonomous speech that could contain foretelling if the BOD had designated that person as a prophet “gift ministry” earned by smooching booty and established by back room ceremonies.
Having heard an over abundance of these 3rd person speeches I no longer believe them to be a message directly from God to the people in the room but rather the person exercising their vocabulary extemporaneously like they do on a couple comic shows improvisation. And one more means of establishing control over an individual. Most of the time these speeches served to magnify the speaker in some fashion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Charlene,
I don’t think we ever met here at GreaseSpot, but I am sure we did meet once or twice briefly at Rye NY, or at HQ a few years later; maybe both.
You probably did not know me much in either setting, because there were hundreds of others at those scenes to try and get to know. At Rye I was in the slow-lane socially, and regrettably the stereotypical science nerd, so I surely blended into the woodwork for you. At HQ we never interacted because I was a non-Corps second class citizen there, and I lived in town, not on the farm. But we both saw a lot of the same things; albeit from vastly differing vantage points as time progressed.
My take on hearing that the Bible interprets itself is entirely different from yours, or at least what I picked up from you in this one post of yours.
I remember getting the Kindle version of your book and in skimming it, I found a place there where you mention the same thing (objecting to the Bible interprets itself), and it kinda shut down my reading for a long time. I just picked it up again today, and am not skim reading, just going slow.
There was another reason I put your book down a couple of years ago. It made me verklempt for the good old days, where we got to see things work on the field, relatively unsupervised.
*/*/*/*
But this recent post by you seems to say that your objection to “the Bible interprets itself” is much deeper than I had previously thought. This tells me that maybe you just didn’t quite understand what was meant by that part of PFAL.
I have spent 20 years here at GreaseSpot constantly pointing out that some of the things we were taught in the class were forgotten, and/or that some of the things we were taught in the class sailed right over our heads, and we never got them.
The way I do this here at GreaseSpot is by pasting in long transcripts from the film class, or pages from the collaterals.
But when I looked up “the Bible interprets itself” in my PFAL book I saw that it covered pages 145 thru 225. That’s a lot of homework for me to think of bringing to this discussion.
So let’s try a super summary.
My take on the good gist of “the Bible interprets itself” is this:
It shows in a practical way how there is only one Author of the Bible, even though the writers are widely scattered in time, geography, and culture.
*/*/*/*/*
What we were taught in the “the Bible interprets itself” teaching is a CLAIM that the Bible has one Author, and that He is interested in transmitting His message to us so that we can have something BETTER than anything we could come up with.
The separateness of God’s writers does not thwart the Author’s ability to make clear what He wants to be clear to us. We were promised in PFAL that God put keys and sign posts in His Word so that we can discover HIS interpretation of His words to us.
My impression, so far, is that it is your position that VPW was claiming that the Bible pretty much automatically interprets itself in a simple and complete way. It’s just unzips itself in a simple mechanical way, and there is hardly any work to be done to ferret out the correct interpretations?
There are lots of places where is seems pretty difficult to find how the Bible interprets itself. But then there are the places where this method works pretty well.
It would take me some time to verify this, but I don’t think the PFAL book ever says all of the Bible interprets itself. But I could use the review. The film class transcript on this is probably longer, but worth looking at. Sometimes VPW would say something in a contorted way in the film class, and later it got straightened out in the book. But unfortunately, most grads seemed to memorize the film class soundtrack more than the book. That happened a lot.
But anyway, I just thought I’d run this by you in case I got your position wrong.
My most important thought here, at the moment, is that it is very good to know the Bible is a cohesive whole, and that it CAN interpret itself, due to it having only one Author, expressing Himself in the vocabularies and writing styles of His many helpers, who were widely scattered in time, geography, and culture.
*/*/*/*
As time permits, I’d like to discuss your analysis of literature and interpretation. I’ve done some looking into popular song lyrics this way. It is an interesting topic, how some authors purposely make their works indecipherable, and thus generating hundreds of interpretations.
SNL comedy sketches have gotten laughs out this phenomenon of some song writers having deliberate disdain at their fan’s idiotic interpretations, and that they feed these fans gibberish for entertainment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Out of curiosity, where you skimming for something you didn't agree with, found it, and shut your mind down because her book challenges the validity of your cult leader and his cult?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Its actually closer to 40 authors with one source of inspiration.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Who uses the so called "keys" so that the Bible can interpret itself? Does the Bible itself use those keys for self interpretation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Who reads the Bible? Does the Bible read itself so that it may interpret itself?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Oh sweet, Mikey is patronizing penworks. I’m sure this will go well
I think Mikey is the one who may have forgotten the PFAL where VP gets animated and goes on for an hour about how the Word interprets itself in the verse in the context, where it is used before. No shell game can make that disappear.
In the positive takeaways from getting away from PFAL, now we no longer have to twist our brains into more positions than the Twister game to try and justify fundamentalism.
You see, if there as is there actually is in reality, 40 authors and one muse, as opposed to one author and 40 conduits, all of that pressure in the brain to try and fit square pegs into round holes just dissipates.
A secondary effect is you’re less likely to be duped by the well intentioned.
No the so called keys are a hoax. Used before is a different author so you cannot force fit things like VPs scriptural scribe acrobatics endeavor to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
With those different writers, that later writer would almost always be familiar with the earlier writer. The Author knew what He was dealing with and coordinated the individual efforts so that the Bible would be a complete whole, with only one Author.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Interesting – Mike's critique here is similar to the obfuscating response he gave me in 2018
I asked him on March 27th of 2018 if he read Undertow - see my post > here
and Mike replied the same day that he was reading it > here note the nonsensical critique of Undertow – Mike said, “The phrase The Bible interprets itself" is an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea. She did not do that justice IMO”
I find this hilarious - the idea that "the Bible interprets itself" is the polar opposite of even an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea...there's nothing to it! the idea is an abbreviation for nonsense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
All of the later writers knew the Old Testament like the back of their hands....kinda gave God a lot more to work with.
Did God actually pen the words? No. And he actually allowed various authors to interject what they had tosay from time to time...such as Paul saying he was speaking by permission and not commandment. So --- it is between 35 and 40 authors and God credits them in the works themselves.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
That it is. God did not make the Bible complex where it takes some guru to intrepret it for us, like wanna be st vic. It's really a matter of opening up the book and reading the words. So why is scripture build-up, as fundies call it, so complex? For example: Does it take a scientist to take a concept and see how it develops through scripture, over time? Or is that more along the lines of basic common sense?
May as well adress this too. Wierwilleites like to say that secular history and secular works should be ignored in favor of scripture only. But how then do people with a western way of thinking understand an eastern book? Eastern people think way differently than those from the west who are influenced heavily by Greek and Latin. Greek for example, is especially precise in it's wording and descriptiveness - especially Koine Greek as opposed to Classical Greek. Eastern people tend to see thing pictorially and rely heavily on symbols, and emotion to communicate. (This split carries into Christian circles too with the differences in Eastern Orthodox Churches and Western Churches that spawned from Rome into Europe and beyond.)
Example: Jesus telling his disciples to pluck out their eye if it offends them. The emphasis of the figure of speech is on standing your ground and not allowing any offense to God in your life, as much as you are able, even to the point of plucking out an eyeball. Westerners typically tend to not communicate in this manner that was typical amongst middle eastern cultures. Perhaps a western way of expressing the same emphasis would be "Stand your ground against sin no matter the cost!"
So, Mike,how in the eff can I understand a book that is from half way around the world, loaded with Hebraic figures of speech, ancient history, etc. if I don't understand these basic tenets?
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
He said he was a stand up comedian back in tha day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
69. So much bullshonta.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I pasted in below my entire response you referred to. It looks like I was in a tough mood then. Maybe from the heat of battle. I said roughly the same thing an hour or so ago.
On 3/27/2018 at 9:16 AM, T-Bone said:
Hey Mike,
i was wondering if you had a chance yet to read Penworks’ Undertow book
Mike responded with:
I have it and am slowly reading it.
My first objection, though, is how she objected to the idea that "the Bible interprets itself." I find that objection very dim witted, even when pumped up with detail like with the posters that attacked it 15 years ago here. It slowed down my reading, but I still intend to finish it. That interpretation issue lowered my expectations and the book's priority in my schedule.
In a nutshell: Imagine how quirky it is for God to issue His Word to communicate to us, but then He FAILS to put cues, keys, and signposts in there to guide sincere seekers. That sounds like a bad way to get a message out. It's like Him saying "I want you to know something but I will not help you understand it."
The phrase "The Bible interprets itself" is an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea. She did not do that justice IMO. The criticism this idea got here 15 years ago I thought was similarly lacking. My impression was that she was leading uninformed readers into thinking God is supposed to be mysterious, an old Catholic idea. Maybe her book will get better later.
If you can recommend a spot to skip ahead to I would appreciate seeing what you feel is an section important to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Are you reading it with a top down approach? Or a down top approach? Or a down over yonder approach?
You gonna take 40 years to read Undertow? You were "slowly" reading it in 2018....welll...ok den....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
In order for Undertow to intrepret itself you have to read the entire thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
T-Bone's response: why does someone poking holes in wierwille's claim "the Bible interprets itself" shut you down?
T-Bone's response: in other words, if you followed the cult-leader's goofy instructions your little world was at peace.
T-Bone's response: on the contrary - it seems I can recall PFAL a lot better than you - and I can tell that most of the time you bluff your way through saying we forgot stuff because when you try to "re-teach" it to us it's all twisted up...I have all the PFAL books 4 feet away from my desk where I'm typing right now - and don't even have to check them - because I recall them better than you do...my 2 years in residence was mainly cult-leaders drilling PFAL into our heads!
T-Bone's response: your statement is confusing - author and writer are the same...that makes the Bible a co-authored book
T-Bone's response: it wasn't "promised" in PFAL - it was CLAIMED in PFAL...how do you know when you've discovered God's interpretation of His own words? What if it's your own interpretation or your own bias...
you need to take another look at II Peter 1:20, 21 again - I'm not sure how you can miss it - it says "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."...that sure looks like co-authorship to me, and it does NOT address readers interpreting the Bible...it talks about the prophecy did not come about by the prophet's own interpretation of things!
T-Bone's response: do you realize how stupid that sounds? then why were the original manuscripts needing to be translated into other languages? Why didn't God just demand everyone learn Hebrew? Then no translation needed for OT...or go with S. Aramaic or Koine Greek...come on, God pick a language and run with it!
T-Bone's response: quit moving the goalposts! It's the same exact baloney in written form, video or audio! There's no nuance of baloney - when baloney is the only ingredient...come on - just face the music - wierwille was a con artist - and you bought into his baloney 100% - and you've invested so much now you're afraid to admit you've been conned.
T-Bone's response:
this sounds like something a 5-year-old would make up. Do you even realize how silly this sounds?
T-Bone's response: really? YOU know what the author knew? HOW did you know that?
T-Bone's response: you're assuming God has hidden messages like you claim wierwille's teachings have. Personally, I'm glad God doesn't have a hidden agenda and He doesn't dodge our prayer requests and He doesn't formulate convoluted insane doctrines the way you seem to think He does...I'm sorry to say this but the god you talk about seems weird, mean, amoral, confused and dispassionate...
T-Bone's response: Hold up! Hold up!!! stop the presses! would you please explain this complex idea in LONG FORM. In other words, expand the extremely abbreviated method so I can see in glorious detail how this method works.
For some reason I'm reminded of school days and how math teachers often caught cheaters who may have copied answers off someone. the teacher asks the cheater to show them their work...have the student write out the formulas and plug in the variables on the quiz and see if they can actually do it.
I find it odd that you say Penworks did not give a fair or accurate assessment of wierwille's claim that the Bible interprets itself - and yet you mischaracterize her point that it's up to the reader to interpret what they are reading...The glove is on the other foot, it seems to me YOU ARE the ONE wanting to lead uninformed readers into thinking the Bible is a mysterious book and one NEEDS pope wierwille to interpret it for them...(maybe wierwille was a closet-Roman Catholic - he sure liked to pontificate
)
T-Bone's response: You know what? I doubt if you've even read Undertow. So, you know what you can skip? Pushing this baloney any further.
~ ~ ~ ~
Edited by T-Bonetypos that correct themselves...yeah that's the ticket!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
70. Mmmph...mmmmmmph
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
71. The phrase "The Bible interprets itself" is an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
72. Because students should feel safe going to class...
...HOWEVER...
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.