It actually is Biblical when you look at Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego properly applying the idea I heard in VPW's use of that phrase.
Can that phrase be improperly applied by someone? someone including VPW? yes!
I always heard that phrase to mean "When a failure happens with trying to apply the Word, or get results from the Word, that failure is ALWAYS on my part and never on God's."
I always heard, and always applied that phrase to a situation where I failed at my believing, or failed to find the right promise of God, or I didn't believe long enough, or I didn't act on it right, that it was always my fault and not God's....... because, as we all agree, God's promises never fail, even if they never come to pass IN MY LIFE, I know they will eventually for everyone at Christ's Return.
Hmmm. Interesting choice of illustrations.
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego had faith to withstand a fire. That level of fire melts idols.
But dogmatically clinging to the false words of a charlatan don’t produce that kind of faith. You would most certainly burn.
I want a pet Honey Badger one day, although I dont think I would be OK for very long...I love watching documentaries on those little furry critters....they can get bitten multiple times by cobras and such and just get a little woozy and still kill and eat the snake....they are lil bad @$$3s!
It actually is Biblical when you look at Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego properly applying the idea I heard in VPW's use of that phrase.
No it isnt. VPW likely had a Freudian slip when he made the statemtent "It’s the Word, even if it never comes to pass" because that's not a statement of faith such as the one Jesus made in the gospels where he stated that not one jot or tittle shall pass before all is fulfilled. However, Im not here to debate the unknown and wierwille's motivations and faith are unknown at this time....well...Im talking about his true hearts intent...A lot can be discerned from his actions that arent at all favorable to the man's legacy but that's not my point. So digression aside.
Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednego didnt indicate that they doubted God's promises. God had made no specific promise in the scrolls that anyone would be saved alive out of a burning fiery furnace but they simply stated they were willing martyrs in case that's what it came to. It's a rather poor comparison because S,M, and A are listed in scripture as examples of having unmoveable commitment and faith to God, where victor paul wierwille is someone who preyed on the flock. That's in scripture too and there's plenty of references to ravenous wolves and false prophets having eyes full of adultery....those would more appropriate for VPW. For wierwille to even introduce the concept "even if it never comes to pass" reeks of a faithless heart...but Im not the searcher of hearts and that's not for me to say, though it doesn't look favarouble.
Mike, the law of believing caused me to have blurry lines when it comes to the promises of God. You see, you or I (or anyone else) are not the agents to bring the promises of God to pass by our believing. The law of believing introduces that sort of doubt into the promises of God because if they dont come to pass in your life the way we were taught to demand then it indicates that we lack believing to bring them to pass. One would not have enough faith in themselves to believe big enough to bring those promises to fruition. I ask ine question: Who made the promises? God! So it's God's business to bring them to pass according to the counsel of his own will: God needs no advisor and he needs no agent. However, he did choose to make us his children and he did choose to make us fellow-workers and re-create us after the image of his only begotten son and for that I am thankful. God is the object of our faith and scripture also tells us to have faith in Jesus Christ as well. We are to trust God that not one jot or tittle will pass. Once I started living this way a huge weight fell off my shoulders because I dont have to bring Gods promises to pass: I cant. I can "claim" them in the sense that I make them my own in my heart, thinking and expectation. But the agency belongs to God. I approach God with love, humility, and respect and ask in faith...I no longer approach the throne of Grace with a demanding, entitled attitude. Im not saying you are either...it's simply what we were taught by wierwille.
Mike: God chose languages to communicate his Will, therfore, the rules of grammer are not stupid at all but function as a safeguard in rightly dividing scripture.
Listen to the heart of the statement made by Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
Ah there’s the problem - one of wierwille’s signature moves - take full advantage of the nebulous factor!
one can reinterpret anything by ‘defining’ the intent of another person. For example:
Mike, when I said your explanation of Daniel 3 stinks, I meant it in a nice way.
In the above example, I am not revealing my real motive. This can be used about others as well. For example “Do you know what killed that little boy? It was the fear in the heart of that mother!”
“Do you know what killed that little boy? It was the fear in the heart of that mother!”
I've been reading the archives on that little boy in the film class. I found some interesting things that I will be soon reporting on about this topic.
I found a spot where I was struggling in my ignorance of how "hyperbole" worked, like I reported the other day here.
I've been reading the archives on that little boy in the film class. I found some interesting things that I will be soon reporting on about this topic.
I found a spot where I was struggling in my ignorance of how "hyperbole" worked, like I reported the other day here.
So you’re saying wierwille exaggerated in the story about the mother and the death of her little boy.
I've been reading the archives on that little boy in the film class. I found some interesting things that I will be soon reporting on about this topic.
I found a spot where I was struggling in my ignorance of how "hyperbole" worked, like I reported the other day here.
Yes, please do. Documentation of said incident would be appreciated, as well.
So you’re saying wierwille exaggerated in the story about the mother and the death of her little boy.
Do you think ALL exaggeration is lying? I don't. It can be, but there are legitimate purposes for hyperbole. It is a super attention getter. It can help summarize. It highlights the important points. It helps memory recall.
I think that SOME things VPW taught were hyperbole, at least in the early stages.
Sometimes the Bible uses hyperbole.
I think this was mostly for new people in their early learning. Later in their curriculum they learn enough to deal with the literal understandings.
Hyperbole is not lying if the literal understandings are also supplied.
Yes, please do. Documentation of said incident would be appreciated, as well.
I will. I am working on it now. It is difficult to read because of code glitches in one of the software overhauls here years ago. I'm smoothing it out for readability.
Do you think ALL exaggeration is lying? I don't. It can be, but there are legitimate purposes for hyperbole. It is a super attention getter. It can help summarize. It highlights the important points. It helps memory recall.
I think that SOME things VPW taught were hyperbole, at least in the early stages.
Sometimes the Bible uses hyperbole.
I think this was mostly for new people in their early learning. Later in their curriculum they learn enough to deal with the literal understandings.
Hyperbole is not lying if the literal understandings are also supplied.
Most people consider exaggeration to be a lie because they are intentionally misleading others to believe that events occurred in a way that they did not. Lying is usually associated with a wide range of negative outcomes. That’s an apt description for how wierwille used hyperbole. He was a sneaky little goblin he was.
Good question. If, for example, you exaggerate in a humurous way and everyone knows it's a humorous exaggeration then it's not lying because the exaggeration is known and is used a literary, or communication device.
If, on the other hand, exaggeration is done in a way where those in the audience are not aware of the exeggartion then yes its lying and underhanded.
Hyperbole is lying if you lead people to believe it's literally true.
RIGHT !
That is what I posted above.
If the literal understanding is made available by the author, then the figurative is acceptable, and not misleading.
The Bible uses figurative language a times, but not in a misleading way for the diligent reader. Since it interprets itself (same Author; 66 books) somewhere the Author supplies the necessary literal understandings.
We were not diligent enough to seek out and find the ALL literal understandings to the figurative parts of the PFAL teaching. Many of us barely graduated from the film class audio soundtrack to the written form; many not at all.
I vaguely remember that Oldiesman or johniam opined once that PFAL has some figurative teaching in it. Did they? If you are reading, did yous guys opine that?
I know I tried to chase down the literal understanding of the Great Principle, AND I also know from asking around, that almost no one else did.
I did, however, neglect plenty of other chase-downs.
I just happened to be interested in the GP because it looked like a computer interface, and I was also real interested in the comparisons of human to animal consciousness levels and abilities. It wasn't until 1998 that I got more systematic at how I attempt to master the material.
Opining that PFAL was sometimes figurative was all I was knowledgeable enough to come up with myself on that ancient 2003 thread I found in the archives. I did not know very well, the word "hyperbole," at that time.
I will soon, maybe today, post a smoothed out version and the URL to the original thread where this very thing came up, sans the word "hyperbole."
There is also, smack dab in the middle of this ancient thread, another surprise endorsement of some things by Raf. I was stunned again. I had no memory of his comments on that same old thread.
The Bible uses figurative language a times, but not in a misleading way for the diligent reader. Since it interprets itself
Good grief. Thats a complete contradiction in terms. Figurative language and literary devices are recognizable due to someone being educated to recognize them. Bullinger was a scholar and a likely crackpot, but a scholar none the less and Bullingers Figures of Speech in the Bible is where wierwille pulled his figures of speech from. The Bible does not intrepret itself and this is a very poignant reason why. The Bible cannot be understood by the illeterate.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
82
50
43
92
Popular Days
Jan 31
120
Feb 1
100
Feb 2
65
Feb 4
65
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 82 posts
T-Bone 50 posts
Bolshevik 43 posts
OldSkool 92 posts
Popular Days
Jan 31 2023
120 posts
Feb 1 2023
100 posts
Feb 2 2023
65 posts
Feb 4 2023
65 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
I knew someone who died trying to make it work. Then, the ministry blamed him for not having big enough believing. He left behind a wife and 2 young kids.
WordWolf
Every once in a while, in society and here, there's someone who engages in this specific fallacy. "I must be right because I'm in the minority." "I must be right because lots of people keep insistin
chockfull
As a different direction with respect to all of the philosophical angles on the law of believing, I am considering Jesus teachings in Matt 6:27 “which of you by taking thought can add one cubit to his
chockfull
Hmmm. Interesting choice of illustrations.
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego had faith to withstand a fire. That level of fire melts idols.
But dogmatically clinging to the false words of a charlatan don’t produce that kind of faith. You would most certainly burn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mixing tenses is a common error.
In this instance, it conflates the finite with the infinite.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I dont know the context here, can you give me a brief history lesson? Thanks in advance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I want a pet Honey Badger one day, although I dont think I would be OK for very long...I love watching documentaries on those little furry critters....they can get bitten multiple times by cobras and such and just get a little woozy and still kill and eat the snake....they are lil bad @$$3s!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
No it isnt. VPW likely had a Freudian slip when he made the statemtent "It’s the Word, even if it never comes to pass" because that's not a statement of faith such as the one Jesus made in the gospels where he stated that not one jot or tittle shall pass before all is fulfilled. However, Im not here to debate the unknown and wierwille's motivations and faith are unknown at this time....well...Im talking about his true hearts intent...A lot can be discerned from his actions that arent at all favorable to the man's legacy but that's not my point. So digression aside.
Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednego didnt indicate that they doubted God's promises. God had made no specific promise in the scrolls that anyone would be saved alive out of a burning fiery furnace but they simply stated they were willing martyrs in case that's what it came to. It's a rather poor comparison because S,M, and A are listed in scripture as examples of having unmoveable commitment and faith to God, where victor paul wierwille is someone who preyed on the flock. That's in scripture too and there's plenty of references to ravenous wolves and false prophets having eyes full of adultery....those would more appropriate for VPW. For wierwille to even introduce the concept "even if it never comes to pass" reeks of a faithless heart...but Im not the searcher of hearts and that's not for me to say, though it doesn't look favarouble.
Mike, the law of believing caused me to have blurry lines when it comes to the promises of God. You see, you or I (or anyone else) are not the agents to bring the promises of God to pass by our believing. The law of believing introduces that sort of doubt into the promises of God because if they dont come to pass in your life the way we were taught to demand then it indicates that we lack believing to bring them to pass. One would not have enough faith in themselves to believe big enough to bring those promises to fruition. I ask ine question: Who made the promises? God! So it's God's business to bring them to pass according to the counsel of his own will: God needs no advisor and he needs no agent. However, he did choose to make us his children and he did choose to make us fellow-workers and re-create us after the image of his only begotten son and for that I am thankful. God is the object of our faith and scripture also tells us to have faith in Jesus Christ as well. We are to trust God that not one jot or tittle will pass. Once I started living this way a huge weight fell off my shoulders because I dont have to bring Gods promises to pass: I cant. I can "claim" them in the sense that I make them my own in my heart, thinking and expectation. But the agency belongs to God. I approach God with love, humility, and respect and ask in faith...I no longer approach the throne of Grace with a demanding, entitled attitude. Im not saying you are either...it's simply what we were taught by wierwille.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I did not say they were grammatically equivalent.
I say that they are identical IN HEART.
Get you head out of your stupid grammar.
Listen to the heart of the meme !!!
Listen to the heart of the statement made by Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Mike: God chose languages to communicate his Will, therfore, the rules of grammer are not stupid at all but function as a safeguard in rightly dividing scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
And yet, we all thought grammar was of utmost importance regarding the comma placement in Luke 23:43.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Not to mention Acts 21:14.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Ah there’s the problem - one of wierwille’s signature moves - take full advantage of the nebulous factor!
one can reinterpret anything by ‘defining’ the intent of another person. For example:
Mike, when I said your explanation of Daniel 3 stinks, I meant it in a nice way.
In the above example, I am not revealing my real motive. This can be used about others as well. For example “Do you know what killed that little boy? It was the fear in the heart of that mother!”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I've been reading the archives on that little boy in the film class. I found some interesting things that I will be soon reporting on about this topic.
I found a spot where I was struggling in my ignorance of how "hyperbole" worked, like I reported the other day here.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
So you’re saying wierwille exaggerated in the story about the mother and the death of her little boy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yes, please do. Documentation of said incident would be appreciated, as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Do you think ALL exaggeration is lying? I don't. It can be, but there are legitimate purposes for hyperbole. It is a super attention getter. It can help summarize. It highlights the important points. It helps memory recall.
I think that SOME things VPW taught were hyperbole, at least in the early stages.
Sometimes the Bible uses hyperbole.
I think this was mostly for new people in their early learning. Later in their curriculum they learn enough to deal with the literal understandings.
Hyperbole is not lying if the literal understandings are also supplied.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I will. I am working on it now. It is difficult to read because of code glitches in one of the software overhauls here years ago. I'm smoothing it out for readability.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Hyperbole
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Most people consider exaggeration to be a lie because they are intentionally misleading others to believe that events occurred in a way that they did not. Lying is usually associated with a wide range of negative outcomes. That’s an apt description for how wierwille used hyperbole. He was a sneaky little goblin he was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Hyperbole is lying if you lead people to believe it's literally true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Predator 2 scene: want some candy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Good question. If, for example, you exaggerate in a humurous way and everyone knows it's a humorous exaggeration then it's not lying because the exaggeration is known and is used a literary, or communication device.
If, on the other hand, exaggeration is done in a way where those in the audience are not aware of the exeggartion then yes its lying and underhanded.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hyperbole
"Hyperbole is not supposed to be taken literally."
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
RIGHT !
That is what I posted above.
If the literal understanding is made available by the author, then the figurative is acceptable, and not misleading.
The Bible uses figurative language a times, but not in a misleading way for the diligent reader. Since it interprets itself (same Author; 66 books) somewhere the Author supplies the necessary literal understandings.
We were not diligent enough to seek out and find the ALL literal understandings to the figurative parts of the PFAL teaching. Many of us barely graduated from the film class audio soundtrack to the written form; many not at all.
I vaguely remember that Oldiesman or johniam opined once that PFAL has some figurative teaching in it. Did they? If you are reading, did yous guys opine that?
I know I tried to chase down the literal understanding of the Great Principle, AND I also know from asking around, that almost no one else did.
I did, however, neglect plenty of other chase-downs.
I just happened to be interested in the GP because it looked like a computer interface, and I was also real interested in the comparisons of human to animal consciousness levels and abilities. It wasn't until 1998 that I got more systematic at how I attempt to master the material.
Opining that PFAL was sometimes figurative was all I was knowledgeable enough to come up with myself on that ancient 2003 thread I found in the archives. I did not know very well, the word "hyperbole," at that time.
I will soon, maybe today, post a smoothed out version and the URL to the original thread where this very thing came up, sans the word "hyperbole."
There is also, smack dab in the middle of this ancient thread, another surprise endorsement of some things by Raf. I was stunned again. I had no memory of his comments on that same old thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Right. It is a figure of speech.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Good grief. Thats a complete contradiction in terms. Figurative language and literary devices are recognizable due to someone being educated to recognize them. Bullinger was a scholar and a likely crackpot, but a scholar none the less and Bullingers Figures of Speech in the Bible is where wierwille pulled his figures of speech from. The Bible does not intrepret itself and this is a very poignant reason why. The Bible cannot be understood by the illeterate.
Edited by OldSkoolLink 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.