What does it mean to be God-Breathed, beyond the standard explanation of being God inspired or given by revelation? If something originated with God, it would seem to me that it should be free of flaws. That obviously doesn't describe the Bible we have come to know or the PFAL class. Is the ambiguity intentional? It's hard to know.
What does it mean to be God-Breathed, beyond the standard explanation of being God inspired or given by revelation? If something originated with God, it would seem to me that it should be free of flaws. That obviously doesn't describe the Bible we have come to know or the PFAL class. Is the ambiguity intentional? It's hard to know.
I don't understand inspiration and revelation as meaning hearing voices and such. I'm not picturing a sentient being sending a message or anything.
I don't understand why something would not be free of flaws? That's not how things evolve.
See Waysider there are some points missing here if I am to interpret. Maybe I didn't hold VPW quite to them same regard.
Is it multisyllabic words? Is that what stumps you? When you hear "Good morning," do you get upset because it's not morning in Japan? Unless it is morning in Japan?
When you watch Law & Order, do you get worked up because police departments aren't necessarily "law" and courts are not necessarily "order"?
Do you park on parkways and drive on driveways because that's what they're named dammit!?
Of course it has flaws. Inspired by God doesn't mean from God?
God-Breathed does not mean God spoke to people and they wrote stuff down? That's the association in PFAL?
Yeah, that's the general idea behind the Way version.
In the PFAL class, VPW says "God had a purpose for everything he said...where He said it, when He said it, how he said it, yada, yada, yada."
So then why are there errors and contradictions? Yeah, I know, "they only APPEAR to be errors and contradictions." Well, if he had the power and ability to breath something pure, why did He allow mankind's fallibility to contaminate the finished product? Likewise with PFAL. If it was God Breathed, why did He allow such simple things as geography errors to enter the final text?
Yeah, that's the general idea behind the Way version.
In the PFAL class, VPW says "God had a purpose for everything he said...where He said it, when He said it, how he said it, yada, yada, yada."
So then why are there errors and contradictions? Yeah, I know, "they only APPEAR to be errors and contradictions." Well, if he had the power and ability to breath something pure, why did He allow mankind's fallibility to contaminate the finished product? Likewise with PFAL. If it was God Breathed, why did He allow such simple things as geography errors to enter the final text?
He breathed the breath of life in man's nostrils and yet we became corrupted. I feel it's an unrealistic expectation to think the Bible is perfect because its inspired of God through imperfect beings, us.
2 Timothy 2:16,17
But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some
Wierwille has cobbled books together based on profane and vain babblings such as the law of believing, etc. That people's trust in God/scripture is overthrown should be no surprise.
He breathed the breath of life in man's nostrils and yet we became corrupted. I feel it's an unrealistic expectation to think the Bible is perfect because its inspired of God through imperfect beings, us.
2 Timothy 2:16,17
But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some
Wierwille has cobbled books together based on profane and vain babblings such as the law of believing, etc. That people's trust in God/scripture is overthrown should be no surprise.
Thereis no basisfor rejecting PFAL asGod-breathed that does not apply equally to scriptures that have beenconsidered God-breathed since there was a canon.
Is the God-Breathed here implying perfection in both instances?
If you reject PFAL as perfect . . . which you should
You can reject The Bible as perfect . . . which you should
(but I don't think God-Breathed in the Bible is intended to be interpreted as perfectionist - that's came from somewhere else)
I can accept that something divinely-inspired doesn't necessarily need to be perfect.
How does one know if something is divinely-inspired? Is one of the criteria that it must only come from the ancient Near East written by Jews?
I generally believe that anything or anyone proclaiming to be of God or by God or from God or inspired by God is certainly NOT. Those proclamations are for story tellers and story readers/hearers -- a device employed to advance narrative.
Maybe it all comes down to the question: What is God? But this, it seems to me, is an absurd question that can never be answered on an internet discussion board.
Thereis no basisfor rejecting PFAL asGod-breathed that does not apply equally to scriptures that have beenconsidered God-breathed since there was a canon.
Is the God-Breathed here implying perfection in both instances?
If you reject PFAL as perfect . . . which you should
You can reject The Bible as perfect . . . which you should
(but I don't think God-Breathed in the Bible is intended to be interpreted as perfectionist - that's came from somewhere else)
"God breathed" does not mean perfect unless you want it to. Of course, if it means perfect, it is as easy to show the Bible is not God breathed as it is to show PFAL is not God breathed.
But I submit that if you reject PFAL as god-breathed on any basis, that basis, when applied to the Bible, will disqualify it as well.
I can accept that something divinely-inspired doesn't necessarily need to be perfect.
How does one know if something is divinely-inspired? Is one of the criteria that it must only come from the ancient Near East written by Jews?
I generally believe that anything or anyone proclaiming to be of God or by God or from God or inspired by God is certainly NOT. Those proclamations are for story tellers and story readers/hearers -- a device employed to advance narrative.
Maybe it all comes down to the question: What is God? But this, it seems to me, is an absurd question that can never be answered on an internet discussion board.
What I understand now is there were many books circulating among the early Church. Being widely circulated was one criteria to become canon.
This is where TWI and "truth vs tradition" nonsense comes in to confuse matters.
There was a body of people with traditions and practices who could look at a book and say, "yes, this follows what we are already doing" . . . or not.
The Bible doesn't stand alone, tradition is necessary and part of its making. I think a cohesive group is more likely to know if something is sacred to them than the thing itself would know.
"God breathed" does not mean perfect unless you want it to. Of course, if it means perfect, it is as easy to show the Bible is not God breathed as it is to show PFAL is not God breathed.
But I submit that if you reject PFAL as god-breathed on any basis, that basis, when applied to the Bible, will disqualify it as well.
I'm trying to understand your question;
If you reject PFAL as god-breathed on any basis
vs
If you reject PFAL on any basis
Is there a difference? god-breathed remains undefined?
To me, rejection of PFAL is caused by a rejection of the people, the followers of The Way, since they go hand in hand.
Exactly. If someone claims to not be a follower of The Way, but still clings to PFAL, they're still a follower of The Way.
"If it walks like a duck........"
Ok. I can't see anyone picking up PFAL without coercion in the first place. No contact is often the best practice when dealing with Wayfers.
Many Western values are often cited to have their source in Christianity . . . you don't have to be a Christian . . . but the social values in culture may still be retained . . . this rejection seems to be of a different flavor than with PFAL.
Edited by Bolshevik it's all a post, or it's not a post at all
No, it's not Wierwille's excrement holding capacity that is in question. That part is indisputable.
The idea is that, if something is shown to be prone to conflicting, erroneous content, be it PFAL, The Little Train That Could or the Bible, it disqualifies itself from a God Breathed designation.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
80
37
33
25
Popular Days
Feb 17
51
Feb 16
36
Feb 27
26
Mar 10
24
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 80 posts
Bolshevik 37 posts
OldSkool 33 posts
Nathan_Jr 25 posts
Popular Days
Feb 17 2023
51 posts
Feb 16 2023
36 posts
Feb 27 2023
26 posts
Mar 10 2023
24 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I can certainly see and appreciate the parallells. The way you sound to me...the way Mike sounds to me...you guys both sound like me. Ive stumbled at wierwille's doctrines and was blinded from scriptu
waysider
The Bible declares itself to be God breathed. Therefore, it must be because the Bible says so and it's God Breathed... That's about as circular as you can get. There is no outside evidence to suggest
sirguessalot
Indeed. Seems Adam-ness alone was incapable of generating much more than feral children. Re: the original topic of reasonable bases for rejecting written things as God-breathed… Most of us m
Raf
Seriously guys.
Seriously.
How the F!@! am i supposed to have an intelligent conversation with someone showing such a deliberate lack of intelligence. How? HOW?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
What does it mean to be God-Breathed, beyond the standard explanation of being God inspired or given by revelation? If something originated with God, it would seem to me that it should be free of flaws. That obviously doesn't describe the Bible we have come to know or the PFAL class. Is the ambiguity intentional? It's hard to know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
(comments about intelligence I understand as a reference to Loy Craig Martindale and his oldest daughter . . . that was a big topic in the late 90s)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I wasn't involved at that time. Can you elaborate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't understand inspiration and revelation as meaning hearing voices and such. I'm not picturing a sentient being sending a message or anything.
I don't understand why something would not be free of flaws? That's not how things evolve.
See Waysider there are some points missing here if I am to interpret. Maybe I didn't hold VPW quite to them same regard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
When his daughter went to school LCM went beserk. I think I heard a baseball bat was involved.
This led to items like Bowling Green, and I was in a constant fight to justify getting an education.
To be brief.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Is it multisyllabic words? Is that what stumps you? When you hear "Good morning," do you get upset because it's not morning in Japan? Unless it is morning in Japan?
When you watch Law & Order, do you get worked up because police departments aren't necessarily "law" and courts are not necessarily "order"?
Do you park on parkways and drive on driveways because that's what they're named dammit!?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The Bible being free from flaws and from God.
That's nonsense.
Of course it has flaws. Inspired by God doesn't mean from God?
God-Breathed does not mean God spoke to people and they wrote stuff down? That's the association in PFAL?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yeah, that's the general idea behind the Way version.
In the PFAL class, VPW says "God had a purpose for everything he said...where He said it, when He said it, how he said it, yada, yada, yada."
So then why are there errors and contradictions? Yeah, I know, "they only APPEAR to be errors and contradictions." Well, if he had the power and ability to breath something pure, why did He allow mankind's fallibility to contaminate the finished product? Likewise with PFAL. If it was God Breathed, why did He allow such simple things as geography errors to enter the final text?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
He breathed the breath of life in man's nostrils and yet we became corrupted. I feel it's an unrealistic expectation to think the Bible is perfect because its inspired of God through imperfect beings, us.
2 Timothy 2:16,17
But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some
Wierwille has cobbled books together based on profane and vain babblings such as the law of believing, etc. That people's trust in God/scripture is overthrown should be no surprise.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
There is no basis for rejecting PFAL as God-breathed that does not apply equally to scriptures that have been considered God-breathed since there was a canon.
Is the God-Breathed here implying perfection in both instances?
If you reject PFAL as perfect . . . which you should
You can reject The Bible as perfect . . . which you should
(but I don't think God-Breathed in the Bible is intended to be interpreted as perfectionist - that's came from somewhere else)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Good heavens, mark the time. He won't be right again for another 12 hours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I agree. That seems to be an interpretation derived from fundamentalist thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I feel the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I can accept that something divinely-inspired doesn't necessarily need to be perfect.
How does one know if something is divinely-inspired? Is one of the criteria that it must only come from the ancient Near East written by Jews?
I generally believe that anything or anyone proclaiming to be of God or by God or from God or inspired by God is certainly NOT. Those proclamations are for story tellers and story readers/hearers -- a device employed to advance narrative.
Maybe it all comes down to the question: What is God? But this, it seems to me, is an absurd question that can never be answered on an internet discussion board.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"God breathed" does not mean perfect unless you want it to. Of course, if it means perfect, it is as easy to show the Bible is not God breathed as it is to show PFAL is not God breathed.
But I submit that if you reject PFAL as god-breathed on any basis, that basis, when applied to the Bible, will disqualify it as well.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
What I understand now is there were many books circulating among the early Church. Being widely circulated was one criteria to become canon.
This is where TWI and "truth vs tradition" nonsense comes in to confuse matters.
There was a body of people with traditions and practices who could look at a book and say, "yes, this follows what we are already doing" . . . or not.
The Bible doesn't stand alone, tradition is necessary and part of its making. I think a cohesive group is more likely to know if something is sacred to them than the thing itself would know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm trying to understand your question;
If you reject PFAL as god-breathed on any basis
vs
If you reject PFAL on any basis
Is there a difference? god-breathed remains undefined?
To me, rejection of PFAL is caused by a rejection of the people, the followers of The Way, since they go hand in hand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Exactly. If someone claims to not be a follower of The Way, but still clings to PFAL, they're still a follower of The Way.
"If it walks like a duck........"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Ok. I can't see anyone picking up PFAL without coercion in the first place. No contact is often the best practice when dealing with Wayfers.
Many Western values are often cited to have their source in Christianity . . . you don't have to be a Christian . . . but the social values in culture may still be retained . . . this rejection seems to be of a different flavor than with PFAL.
Edited by Bolshevikit's all a post, or it's not a post at all
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Wierwille being full of $h!t disqualifies the Bible as God breathed?
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
This phrasing is a bit unclear to me. Was it caused by a typo or something?
edit: Not the $h!t part. I get that.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
yeah, I fixed it....lmao
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
OK, I see what you mean now.
No, it's not Wierwille's excrement holding capacity that is in question. That part is indisputable.
The idea is that, if something is shown to be prone to conflicting, erroneous content, be it PFAL, The Little Train That Could or the Bible, it disqualifies itself from a God Breathed designation.
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.