I wish everyone here could just discuss the topics and not feel a need to constantly attack and degrade me. I should not be the topic.
When people have a hard time attacking my messages, then they turn to attack me, or belittle my thinking as imprisoned in VPW's ways.
It's probably tied up in some psychosocial concept.
3 hours ago, Mike said:
I really have nothing denigrating in the idea I am batting about.
I'm really not committed to it, but I do have a lot of curious scriptures that seem be asking to be paid attention to.
I think Paul's grace being sufficient for him and something flowing out of Jesus, who had infinite spirit, just screams the question to me "Why has God given us such details to include in our perspective of things?"
Well... this comment/post communicates an intriguing bit of imagination to me. Notable rhetorical question you posed to yourself.
My observation is you are not trying to convince anyone of the veracity of Wierwille's writings. And that's refreshing.
Ohhhh. I thought you meant that I added words to the verse quotation.
Hmmm.
Don't we all add words to the words of the Biblical text, when we discuss that text, after quoting the text?
When did the rule come down that we can only use words found within a verse, when discussing the verse?
Is that what you are doing? Condemning my expression of an idea because I use my own words to describe it and not the words that the scholars who translated the Biblical text used? Please write us an essay on your new rule here. I think we all violate it often.
*/*/*
I added words to show what I thought MAYBE the text was implying, or that other related texts could imply.
I capitalized the word MAYBE, because I got the impression that you think I am committed to this budget idea.... when I am not. Evidently you have not seen the many caveats I have made in this thread that say I am NOT committed to this idea at all... NONE!
This budget idea kept popping up over the decades as I read my Bible. It has nothing to do with the collaterals as you and others are stuck in a rut thinking.
For decades I would notice this idea popping up, make a small note, and throw the note in my paper folder, and dismiss the idea completely.... sometimes for months, sometimes for years... until it popped up again as I read my Bible.
To bad you didn't see this stand-offish attitude I have toward the budget idea.
You and the others are so caught up in condemning me (along with VPW) that you can't fix your minds on a new idea. You are stuck in many ruts an have almost no idea why I posted this thread.
I posted it to see the idea in daylight and focus for the first time, as I present it to the toughest audience I can imagine, to see if they can shoot down the idea, and see if I can defend it. This month is the first time I systematically explored this idea in my whole life. Do you see how wrong you were to think I got this from VPW and that I have been thinking this budget idea in all my doings since the 1970s ??? You (and the others here) just have no clue to what I think or what I am doing, and that convinces me you were scant on understanding in the past when VPW was alive.
*/*/*
Too bad most of my audience has not the focus of mind to get it off VPW condemnation, and get it off Mike condemnation, and get it on the idea of the budget... just temporarily, for exploratory discussion. Every now and then someone makes a good point on the topic of the idea or may latest post on the idea, and I am happy for that.
But for you to try and pry my conscience with statements like I had no heart for what Jesus went through in the Garden and how could I say such terrible things .... All I can say is you've stooped to become what you condemn.
You, along with others quickly stoop to try and use the same mind control on me that TWI used on you, if it will win you an argument before others. That is what happens when you focus on hate and dislike and disgust in a brother in Christ. You become what you look at, if you do it long enough and hard enough. Read John's first epistle and see if you are skirting the edge of hate that he warns about there with how you regard your brother VPW, me, and other PFAL fans.
Mike your budget idea shows the constraints of your self censorship to PFlappy collaterals for 3 decades.
I don’t come up with your ideas just comment on them.
There is no hate in my heart towards you. That’s ridiculous. I just comment on the bondage that I see from the path you have taken.
But instead of taking to heart what I am saying you have a natural defense reaction of accusing others of the very thing they are pointing out to you.
The only mind control is your self imposed control from running with blinders on. I’m not winning arguments this isn’t a debate. It is a forum where comments flow sequentially in time though.
There is no condemnation to any in Christ. But the bondage of self censorship to plagiarized materials is definitely damaging to any Christ relationship.
You come up with a half baked idea. Then you sling it out here and whine when others say your cake is half baked. It is not belittling to point out ideas that are little because of where they grew up.
Look it is a very very very simple concept that if you live in a sheltered world in Biblical research you will form ideas that are not going to jive with the rest of the body of Christ. VPW was the king of conspiracy theories. He could find them in a single comma in the Bible.
Caving in to conspiracy theorists will leave you trying to protect your mind from aliens with a tinfoil hat.
Don't we all add words to the words of the Biblical text, when we discuss that text, after quoting the text?
When did the rule come down that we can only use words found within a verse, when discussing the verse?
Is that what you are doing? Condemning my expression of an idea because I use my own words to describe it and not the words that the scholars who translated the Biblical text used? Please write us an essay on your new rule here. I think we all violate it often.
I see what you are saying. Here's my side of it.
1. GSC is an open forum to discuss ideas.
2. With vp, his "expression of an idea" and the words he used "to describe it" became a doctrine (a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church) which progressed into becoming dogma (a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true). That's how we ended of with "the law ofbelieving," "the great principle" about holy spirit and "The Word takes the place of theabsent Christ." The problem is that these terms of his were contrary to what the scriptures actually taught and therefore were extremely detrimental to the believers - they made the word of God in our lives ineffectual.
3. So when I said that the words you used ("virtue drainage, budget on virtue that day and Jesus needed to be sharp about it, finite virtue budget") were not in the scriptures you were referring to, it was in the context of showing that your terms (like vp's) were contrary to what the scriptures actually said and as a result would take the power and life out of the word of God (Heb 4:12).
Don't we all add words to the words of the Biblical text, when we discuss that text, after quoting the text?
When did the rule come down that we can only use words found within a verse, when discussing the verse?
Revelation 22:18-19
King James Version
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Weren't we taught in PLAF that that's how the serpent beguiled Eve?
Add a word, subtract a word, change a word, turn the whole thing around.
You are right.
But Eve had a perfectly renewed mind at one time, and she had access the Author of her command to not eat.
We don't have the originals, especially when we look at English versions. With the English the strict rules, that DID apply to the originals in the original languages, don't apply as strictly to man-made translations and versions.
Think about the rule to not change a word:
In a translation nearly EVERY word is changed from one language to another.
That is just one example of how "no, add, no subtract, no change" don't apply as strictly to English versions as they did to Eve.
Remember also that even the critical Greek texts are modern (16th century and newer) scholarly attempts to re-construct the originals... which may have not been Greek... LOTS of words got added, subtracted, changed.... The question should be "Are changes rightly dividing the Word?"
You are right.
But Eve had a perfectly renewed mind at one time, and she had access the Author of her command to not eat.
We don't have the originals, especially when we look at English versions. With the English the strict rules, that DID apply to the originals in the original languages, don't apply as strictly to man-made translations and versions.
So then why did Saint Vic teach it in the class? So he could give us another example of how he didn't have to obey his own rules?
27 minutes ago, Mike said:
Think about the rule to not change a word:
In a translation nearly EVERY word is changed from one language to another.
You're really grasping straws here. You know when you're changing the word of God.
27 minutes ago, Mike said:
That is just one example of how "no, add, no subtract, no change" don't apply as strictly to English versions as they did to Eve.
The why waste time teaching it? Another example of why PLAF:sucks: useless teachings.
27 minutes ago, Mike said:
Remember also that even the critical Greek texts are modern (16th century and newer) scholarly attempts to re-construct the originals... which may have not been Greek... LOTS of words got added, subtracted, changed.... The question should be "Are changes rightly dividing the Word?"
You mean are they changed according to Saint Vic's interpretation, don't you? An itepretation that allowed him to drown in his vices and never have to repent for his errors.
Mike: "Thinkabout the rule to not change a word:
In a translation nearly EVERY word ischanged from one language to another."
That's why it's called translation!! This sinister, cunning argument is seductive illogic to a dull mind, to a mind seeking to beleeeve, to a mind raising a stop sign to clarity of thought.
Victor's writings and holding forths are replete with these pithy seductions to kneel before the gods of willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty and non sequitur.
Statements like this SEEM accurate, logical. But they are so astonishingly, blindingly stupid, they can seduce even the most humble lover of God to turn and follow the luminescent piper.
Mike: "Thinkabout the rule to not change a word:
In a translation nearly EVERY word ischanged from one language to another."
That's why it's called translation!! This sinister, cunning argument is seductive illogic to a dull mind, to a mind seeking to beleeeve, to a mind raising a stop sign to clarity of thought.
Victor's writings and holding forths are replete with these pithy seductions to kneel before the gods of willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty and non sequitur.
Statements like this SEEM accurate, logical. But they are so astonishingly stupid, they can seduce even the most humble lover of God to turn and follow the luminescent piper.
Just exhausting!
You bring up an interesting point, Nate.
In translations we know the word have been shifted from one language to another, using similar words chosen to be closest to the original according to the translator's ability.
With Saint Vic, who spoke bibical Greek as well as he spoke Klngon, it was more a choice made around his vices.
The law of believing made room for blaming the victim, it also provided cover for his impotence in the spiritual realm.
Do anything with the love of God opened the doors for his sexual escapades, his boozing and his sealing others works.
If you look at PLAF, you can see it's just one big license to do whatever he wanted.
Remember also that even the critical Greek texts are modern (16th century and newer) scholarly attempts to re-construct the originals... which may have not been Greek... LOTS of words got added, subtracted, changed.... The question should be "Are changes rightly dividing the Word?"
No sir, you are in error once again.
Critical Greek Text:
As you can see, from the fourth century onwards the material base for establishing the text of the Greek New Testament is very good indeed. (OldSkool note: this dates the Critical Greek Text of Westcott and Hort based on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaticus. Both highly suspect Alexandrian based texts that do not agree fully with the Textus Receptus)
I'll go back to " trying to convince anyone of the veracity of Wierwille's writings" on some other thread, but that is not my aim here at all.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
You are right.
But Eve had a perfectly renewed mind at one time, and she had access the Author of her command to not eat.
We don't have the originals, especially when we look at English versions. With the English the strict rules, that DID apply to the originals in the original languages, don't apply as strictly to man-made translations and versions.
Think about the rule to not change a word:
In a translation nearly EVERY word is changed from one language to another.
That is just one example of how "no, add, no subtract, no change" don't apply as strictly to English versions as they did to Eve.
Remember also that even the critical Greek texts are modern (16th century and newer) scholarly attempts to re-construct the originals... which may have not been Greek... LOTS of words got added, subtracted, changed.... The question should be "Are changes rightly dividing the Word?"
This is getting to be so silly with these fragmented mishmash-um-ups and regurgitated wierwille vomit of the turd kind.
There’s an idea in here somewhere for a parody of wierwille’s incompetent research and analytical skills.
Picture this:
wierwille runs a watch & clock repair shop called This Day and Time and Hour. Folks bring their watches and clocks in for repairs, maintenance, and modifications.
His standard procedure is to totally disassemble the timepiece regardless of what it needs done to it. By the timeit’s all apart he realizes it doesn’t tell time anymore. Oh well...
He’s good about giving you a loaner watch (his timepiece of choice is a Mickey Mouse Watch limited edition – he gets them cheap - he buys them second hand – ba dum bum I'm here all week folks…now if the loaner watch craps out he says to call his shop during normal operating hours and he’ll tell you what time it is…how convenient...he’s pretty good about answering the phone… unless he’s busy schtupping in the motorcoach. ) end of stoooooowee cue the credits - roll the coming attractions .
I’ve gone over this translation / version stuff a few times on different threads for Mike – but it bears repeating here…the following is a revised version from my post on The Absent Christ? thread Sunday October 9, 2022, 9:23 AM which I’ve reconfigured for this discussion:
wierwille was far removed from analyzing the actual texts that are still in existence; in the PFAL book, page 128 in chapter 11, “The Translations of the Word of God”, wierwille states:
“Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all verses.”
I see at least two critical issues with wierwille’s approach:
First: He’s off by about a century and a half on the oldest manuscripts in existence – FF Bruce notes in his book The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? on page 10 that there are in existence over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part and that the best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350...point is there are more docs available to check than what wierwille said.
Second: wierwille is not comparing Greek manuscripts – instead he is comparing translations or versions of the Bible! That’s like playing the telephone game - the first person states a message and by the time it goes through a whole line of people the message sounds entirely different from the original. wierwille is at the end of the line - comparing how one translator interprets a phrase in the Greek to how another translator handles the same phrase.
Frankly I have zero faith in wierwille’s ability to see beyond his own doctrinal preferences to note differences or similarities in translations since he would come up with goofy phrases that blurred variations like “all without exception” and “all without distinction” – which is the same thing.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~Scholars F.F. Bruce and Sir Frederic Kenyon – both with expertise in the historical reliability of the New Testament have stated that very little has been lost as to what was originally written in the New Testament docs, in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by FF Bruce... it says on pages 14 and 15:
“The study of the kind of attestation found in MSS and quotations in later writers is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism. This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question.
It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two slips at least. When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists’ errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are.
Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.
To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none: ‘The Interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.’ “
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
Bruce’s point is simple – with the increase of hand-copies comes the possibility of scribal errors – but that also means you have that many more “witnesses” as to what was originally said. And another thing to consider is what type of scribal errors occurred. Was a word misspelled, or repeated or transposed, etc. - - these would be easy to spot and corrected by comparing other copies.
~ ~ ~ ~
Multiple challenges present themselves…not to be confused with 'Scripture interprets itself'
First challenge: how can wierwille claim he can get back to the authentic prophecy when it was first given if he is only looking at translations and versions instead of the manuscripts written in the original biblical languages? In my humble opinion, it is doubtful wierwille was even competent to read and understand any of the biblical languages anyway.
Second challenge: what standard or criteria did wierwille use declare that the KJV or other translations lack validity and authority in matters of the Christian faith?
Third challenge: specifically what errors are there in the KJV - or in other translations, for that matter - that need to be addressed because it is mission critical to the church and/or one’s Christian faith? Or to put it another way - what errors does PFAL confront and resolve to make PFAL a better version of Christianity?
Fourth challenge: How is PFAL God-breathed if all wierwille did to put it together was just compare translations / versions …oh, and plagiarize the work of others too?
Fifth challenge: God’s breath gave life to Adam ( Genesis 2:7) and to Scripture ( 2 Timothy 3:16) which in a way represents an extension of God Himself. If PFAL grads believe that a bundle of plagiarized material and heretical doctrines are God-breathed - then doesn’t that make God a lying, thieving loon? Just sayin’.
Sixth challenge: goes out to Mike and has to do with pulling theories out of his … …thin air- based on a variation of the I John 4:20 ‘principle’:
Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen…1 John 4:20
How can Mike say we are given glimpses of God’s budget, double doors and the reason for the lack of signs, miracles and wonders when he can’t even show where the glimpses are in the written Word of God – the Bible – any translation, anytime, anywhere?
Edited by T-Bone what time is it b_ys & g_rls? It's time to edit! See what I d_d th_ re?
Bruce’s point is simple – with the increase of hand-copies comes the possibility of scribal errors – but that also means you have that many more “witnesses” as to what was originally said. And another thing to consider is what type of scribal errors occurred. Was a word misspelled, or repeated or transposed, etc. - - these would be easy to spot and corrected by comparing other copies.
There ya go. Instead of one original, oldest manuscript we have thousands of manuscripts, which is better as noted in the quote you left T-Bone. Yet, wierwille has convinced people like Mike (and formerly myself) that the only reliable intrepretation is what wierwille says it is. God is perfectly able, capable, and has preserved his pure Word of God for those who want it. Wierwillism overthrows a person's faith in God's ability to effectually communicate himself, leaving them instead with all kinds of doubt as evidenced by mike's post.
You are right.
But Eve had a perfectly renewed mind at one time, and she had access the Author of her command to not eat.
That's a carrot on a stick crap promoted by the unlearned. It's just not a thing. The perfectly renewed mind? Not on scripture or the lives of the saints.
There ya go. Instead of one original, oldest manuscript we have thousands of manuscripts, which is better as noted in the quote you left T-Bone. Yet, wierwille has convinced people like Mike (and formerly myself) that the only reliable intrepretation is what wierwille says it is. God is perfectly able, capable, and has preserved his pure Word of God for those who want it. Wierwillism overthrows a person's faith in God's ability to effectually communicate himself, leaving them instead with all kinds of doubt as evidenced by mike's post.
You know, it occurred to me in my post, I could have made a seventh challenge - also to Mike – finish reading Penworks’ book Undertow- there’s some relevant stuff in it about changing NT words / translation work…wierwille who was incompetent when it came to the biblical languages – pressuredthe research department to translate a NT word very differently than what a person with expertise in Koine Greekwould translate it – totally changing the tone of what the biblical writer intended to convey…and THAT ladies and gentle peoples is how TWI does research. :)
5 emoticons were mortified by this post.
Edited by T-Bone How many emoticons would you say were mortified by this post?
Eve never had a renewed mind. She was perfect when she was created and experienced corruption when she and her husband disobeyed God. Renewing of the mind is something entirely new that comes with the new nature, which is God's answer to our corruption. Renewing of one's mind is a concept in the Church epistles, thus belonging in the category of the great mystery of God.
Eve never had a renewed mind. She was perfect when she was created and experienced corruption when she and her husband disobeyed God. Renewing of the mind is something entirely new that comes with the new nature, which is God's answer to our corruption. Renewing of one's mind is a concept in the Church epistles, thus belonging in the category of the great mystery of God.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
358
229
215
220
Popular Days
Mar 4
144
May 2
83
Apr 29
77
Mar 5
70
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 358 posts
So_crates 229 posts
OldSkool 215 posts
Nathan_Jr 220 posts
Popular Days
Mar 4 2023
144 posts
May 2 2023
83 posts
Apr 29 2023
77 posts
Mar 5 2023
70 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
I believe that the real deal is possible and the path toward it is to address and correct all the doctrinal and practical error introduced by VPs box top doctorate research. isolation from other
chockfull
The Corps is a necessary cult element providing free labor at the expense of volunteers lives. Any imagery like the Marines promotes extremist behavior. No other Christian seminary or school use
Nathan_Jr
"Teaching" Romans to the Corps, Q&A: LCM: How much does your behavior that people do not see influence your example to them? VPW: It doesn't, unless you believe it will. LCM: You u
Posted Images
Rocky
It's probably tied up in some psychosocial concept.
Well... this comment/post communicates an intriguing bit of imagination to me. Notable rhetorical question you posed to yourself.
My observation is you are not trying to convince anyone of the veracity of Wierwille's writings. And that's refreshing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Mike your budget idea shows the constraints of your self censorship to PFlappy collaterals for 3 decades.
I don’t come up with your ideas just comment on them.
There is no hate in my heart towards you. That’s ridiculous. I just comment on the bondage that I see from the path you have taken.
But instead of taking to heart what I am saying you have a natural defense reaction of accusing others of the very thing they are pointing out to you.
The only mind control is your self imposed control from running with blinders on. I’m not winning arguments this isn’t a debate. It is a forum where comments flow sequentially in time though.
There is no condemnation to any in Christ. But the bondage of self censorship to plagiarized materials is definitely damaging to any Christ relationship.
You come up with a half baked idea. Then you sling it out here and whine when others say your cake is half baked. It is not belittling to point out ideas that are little because of where they grew up.
Look it is a very very very simple concept that if you live in a sheltered world in Biblical research you will form ideas that are not going to jive with the rest of the body of Christ. VPW was the king of conspiracy theories. He could find them in a single comma in the Bible.
Caving in to conspiracy theorists will leave you trying to protect your mind from aliens with a tinfoil hat.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I see what you are saying. Here's my side of it.
1. GSC is an open forum to discuss ideas.
2. With vp, his "expression of an idea" and the words he used "to describe it" became a doctrine (a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church) which progressed into becoming dogma (a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true). That's how we ended of with "the law of believing," "the great principle" about holy spirit and "The Word takes the place of the absent Christ." The problem is that these terms of his were contrary to what the scriptures actually taught and therefore were extremely detrimental to the believers - they made the word of God in our lives ineffectual.
3. So when I said that the words you used ("virtue drainage, budget on virtue that day and Jesus needed to be sharp about it, finite virtue budget") were not in the scriptures you were referring to, it was in the context of showing that your terms (like vp's) were contrary to what the scriptures actually said and as a result would take the power and life out of the word of God (Heb 4:12).
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Revelation 22:18-19
King James Version
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Well, I mean. You did ask, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Weren't we taught in PLAF that that's how the serpent beguiled Eve?
Add a word, subtract a word, change a word, turn the whole thing around.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Uh-oh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thank you, much, for both of those points.
I'll go back to " trying to convince anyone of the veracity of Wierwille's writings" on some other thread, but that is not my aim here at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You are right.
But Eve had a perfectly renewed mind at one time, and she had access the Author of her command to not eat.
We don't have the originals, especially when we look at English versions. With the English the strict rules, that DID apply to the originals in the original languages, don't apply as strictly to man-made translations and versions.
Think about the rule to not change a word:
In a translation nearly EVERY word is changed from one language to another.
That is just one example of how "no, add, no subtract, no change" don't apply as strictly to English versions as they did to Eve.
Remember also that even the critical Greek texts are modern (16th century and newer) scholarly attempts to re-construct the originals... which may have not been Greek... LOTS of words got added, subtracted, changed.... The question should be "Are changes rightly dividing the Word?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So then why did Saint Vic teach it in the class? So he could give us another example of how he didn't have to obey his own rules?
You're really grasping straws here. You know when you're changing the word of God.
The why waste time teaching it? Another example of why PLAF:sucks: useless teachings.
You mean are they changed according to Saint Vic's interpretation, don't you? An itepretation that allowed him to drown in his vices and never have to repent for his errors.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You mean changes rightly dividing the word according to you, don't you?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Mike: "Think about the rule to not change a word:
In a translation nearly EVERY word is changed from one language to another."
That's why it's called translation!! This sinister, cunning argument is seductive illogic to a dull mind, to a mind seeking to beleeeve, to a mind raising a stop sign to clarity of thought.
Victor's writings and holding forths are replete with these pithy seductions to kneel before the gods of willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty and non sequitur.
Statements like this SEEM accurate, logical. But they are so astonishingly, blindingly stupid, they can seduce even the most humble lover of God to turn and follow the luminescent piper.
Just exhausting!
Edited by Nathan_JrGloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You bring up an interesting point, Nate.
In translations we know the word have been shifted from one language to another, using similar words chosen to be closest to the original according to the translator's ability.
With Saint Vic, who spoke bibical Greek as well as he spoke Klngon, it was more a choice made around his vices.
The law of believing made room for blaming the victim, it also provided cover for his impotence in the spiritual realm.
Do anything with the love of God opened the doors for his sexual escapades, his boozing and his sealing others works.
If you look at PLAF, you can see it's just one big license to do whatever he wanted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
No sir, you are in error once again.
Critical Greek Text:
As you can see, from the fourth century onwards the material base for establishing the text of the Greek New Testament is very good indeed. (OldSkool note: this dates the Critical Greek Text of Westcott and Hort based on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaticus. Both highly suspect Alexandrian based texts that do not agree fully with the Textus Receptus)
https://library.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html
Textus Reptus:
https://textusreceptusbibles.com/What_is_the_Textus_Receptus
Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Pedangta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc
https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Editorial/Erasmus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
This is getting to be so silly with these fragmented mishmash-um-ups and regurgitated wierwille vomit of the turd kind.
Excellent points everyone else – it’s tricky unraveling the goofy knots!
There’s an idea in here somewhere for a parody of wierwille’s incompetent research and analytical skills.
Picture this:
wierwille runs a watch & clock repair shop called This Day and Time and Hour. Folks bring their watches and clocks in for repairs, maintenance, and modifications.
His standard procedure is to totally disassemble the timepiece regardless of what it needs done to it. By the time
it’s all apart he realizes it doesn’t tell time anymore. Oh well...
He’s good about giving you a loaner watch (his timepiece of choice is a Mickey Mouse Watch limited edition – he gets them cheap - he buys them second hand – ba dum bum
I'm here all week folks…now if the loaner watch craps out he says to call his shop during normal operating hours and he’ll tell you what time it is…how convenient...he’s pretty good about answering the phone… unless he’s busy schtupping in the motorcoach. ) end of stoooooowee cue the credits - roll the coming attractions .
I’ve gone over this translation / version stuff a few times on different threads for Mike – but it bears repeating here…the following is a revised version from my post on The Absent Christ? thread Sunday October 9, 2022, 9:23 AM which I’ve reconfigured for this discussion:
wierwille was far removed from analyzing the actual texts that are still in existence; in the PFAL book, page 128 in chapter 11, “The Translations of the Word of God”, wierwille states:
“Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all verses.”
I see at least two critical issues with wierwille’s approach:
First: He’s off by about a century and a half on the oldest manuscripts in existence – FF Bruce notes in his book The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? on page 10 that there are in existence over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part and that the best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350...point is there are more docs available to check than what wierwille said.
Second: wierwille is not comparing Greek manuscripts – instead he is comparing translations or versions of the Bible! That’s like playing the telephone game - the first person states a message and by the time it goes through a whole line of people the message sounds entirely different from the original. wierwille is at the end of the line - comparing how one translator interprets a phrase in the Greek to how another translator handles the same phrase.
Frankly I have zero faith in wierwille’s ability to see beyond his own doctrinal preferences to note differences or similarities in translations since he would come up with goofy phrases that blurred variations like “all without exception” and “all without distinction” – which is the same thing.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~Scholars F.F. Bruce and Sir Frederic Kenyon – both with expertise in the historical reliability of the New Testament have stated that very little has been lost as to what was originally written in the New Testament docs, in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by FF Bruce... it says on pages 14 and 15:
“The study of the kind of attestation found in MSS and quotations in later writers is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism. This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question.
It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two slips at least. When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists’ errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are.
Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.
To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none: ‘The Interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.’ “
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
Bruce’s point is simple – with the increase of hand-copies comes the possibility of scribal errors – but that also means you have that many more “witnesses” as to what was originally said. And another thing to consider is what type of scribal errors occurred. Was a word misspelled, or repeated or transposed, etc. - - these would be easy to spot and corrected by comparing other copies.
~ ~ ~ ~
Multiple challenges present themselves…not to be confused with 'Scripture interprets itself'
First challenge: how can wierwille claim he can get back to the authentic prophecy when it was first given if he is only looking at translations and versions instead of the manuscripts written in the original biblical languages? In my humble opinion, it is doubtful wierwille was even competent to read and understand any of the biblical languages anyway.
Second challenge: what standard or criteria did wierwille use declare that the KJV or other translations lack validity and authority in matters of the Christian faith?
Third challenge: specifically what errors are there in the KJV - or in other translations, for that matter - that need to be addressed because it is mission critical to the church and/or one’s Christian faith? Or to put it another way - what errors does PFAL confront and resolve to make PFAL a better version of Christianity?
Fourth challenge: How is PFAL God-breathed if all wierwille did to put it together was just compare translations / versions …oh, and plagiarize the work of others too?
Fifth challenge: God’s breath gave life to Adam ( Genesis 2:7 ) and to Scripture ( 2 Timothy 3:16 ) which in a way represents an extension of God Himself. If PFAL grads believe that a bundle of plagiarized material and heretical doctrines are God-breathed - then doesn’t that make God a lying, thieving loon? Just sayin’.
Sixth challenge: goes out to Mike and has to do with pulling theories out of his … …thin air - based on a variation of the I John 4:20 ‘principle’:
Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen…1 John 4:20
How can Mike say we are given glimpses of God’s budget, double doors and the reason for the lack of signs, miracles and wonders when he can’t even show where the glimpses are in the written Word of God – the Bible – any translation, anytime, anywhere?
Edited by T-Bonewhat time is it b_ys & g_rls? It's time to edit! See what I d_d th_ re?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
There ya go. Instead of one original, oldest manuscript we have thousands of manuscripts, which is better as noted in the quote you left T-Bone. Yet, wierwille has convinced people like Mike (and formerly myself) that the only reliable intrepretation is what wierwille says it is. God is perfectly able, capable, and has preserved his pure Word of God for those who want it. Wierwillism overthrows a person's faith in God's ability to effectually communicate himself, leaving them instead with all kinds of doubt as evidenced by mike's post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
That's a carrot on a stick crap promoted by the unlearned. It's just not a thing. The perfectly renewed mind? Not on scripture or the lives of the saints.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You know, it occurred to me in my post, I could have made a seventh challenge - also to Mike – finish reading Penworks’ book Undertow - there’s some relevant stuff in it about changing NT words / translation work…wierwille who was incompetent when it came to the biblical languages – pressured the research department to translate a NT word very differently than what a person with expertise in Koine Greek would translate it – totally changing the tone of what the biblical writer intended to convey…and THAT ladies and gentle peoples is how TWI does research.
:)
5 emoticons were mortified by this post.
Edited by T-BoneHow many emoticons would you say were mortified by this post?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
She did?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Serpent: oooh Eve, that’s some pair you’ve got there!
Eve: That sounds like one of those pickup lines Perville taught us in the CF&S class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
For me, this whole thread is textbook The Way International.
They make outrageous claims:
Wait until you see the life God has for you.
Go WOW and you'll mature spiritually 10 years.
God will meet all your needs
Then, after they've been called on the carpet by people falling on their face believing those claims, the make up excuses:
You didn't believe
It wasn't God"s will
Well, God has a budget and you're not on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Eve never had a renewed mind. She was perfect when she was created and experienced corruption when she and her husband disobeyed God. Renewing of the mind is something entirely new that comes with the new nature, which is God's answer to our corruption. Renewing of one's mind is a concept in the Church epistles, thus belonging in the category of the great mystery of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Mike: "Think about the rule to not change a word:
In a translation nearly EVERY word is changed from one language to another."
This idea resonates well with Muslim fundamentalists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_translations
Hey! Victor learned wherever he could.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Her husband? Who officiated the wedding ceremony?
Oh, it's just a creation myth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Excuse me. Adam. God instituted marriage so Im sure they werent single. Is God incapable of all things? Is he a myth?
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.