Another excellent post from HCW, I wonder if we ever met while I was an innie.
I dunno def. Its possible. I met 100's of folks giving tours of HQ on Sundays, during Ambassador One weekends, special events, etc. I was always around, usually with a camera during most of the 80's if there was a big deal event it was my job to be there. The even imported me to Emporia to shoot a couple of the Corps weddings.
Thanks for the complements def. I apprecialte your opinions.
I knew my TWI experience wasn't the norm but I had no idea things were so bad on the field. Discussions were not only encouraged at the root you could "get into trouble" for NOT speaking up. At least I did. I did a lot of work directly for VPW and the trustees. Spent a good bit of time in & out of the motorcoaches, in meetings of one sort or another.
VP actually got more than irritated at me one time when I asked him what he thought I should do on a project he had asked me to do. He told me, "You're the professional, don't ask ME what to do you should TELL me what you're Going to do. I'll tell you what I'm thinking and you just go do what you do. If I could do what YOU do, I wouldn't need you around here, would I?"
"Nope." I said. "Cool then I'll do it & show you what I'M thinking, then we can talk about it & finishe it up."
He said "OK. Just call Karen when you're ready."
I thought most things on the field went like that. I'm seeing now that the believer that came to visit on weekends were not a representative sampling of how things were, nor were my experiences when I went out on the field. I mean I knew people were on their best behavior when HQ staffers or VP was around; but really...telling people to do it again until you come up with the same thing we already know...rediculous.
quote:
We were told to never question our leaders and if we had heard that people were editing or questioning vpw's writings, we would have been horrified.
The research dept would discuss and sometimes argue about stuff a lot. We'd get articles submitted from the field for TWMag, even JAL's, and say stuff like, "We can't print this crap!" We'd send it back to the author, under a deadline, "If you don't correct it and get it back by _________. You won't get in the mag."
Back in the day, when it was in vogue to speak out against cults, "lots" of mainstream ministers would read exerpts from TWI books, TWMag etc. as parts of their presentations. This was about 20 or so years ago though.
Not too many know & even fewer care about TWI, today, although it IS firmly ensconsed in ALL of the cult books
I'm pretty sure Chuck Swindoll has read VP and done the same. Pretty much every "major" contempory Christian teacher of the day has read him or has had their staffers read him, just as VPW read others in his day & had his staff read others also. (How could he lift their works otherwise?) They have lifted VP also.
I'm pretty sure he hasn't. VP & The Way were an extremely minor outpost on the Christian landscape of the day. The only thing Wierwille was read for was to prepare an anti-cult blurb. Even then, he wasn't read too well by most. Mercifully, Wierwille's influence was minor to none on the wider body of Christ.
Good point Evan. However, I want to add that Wierwille read Bullinger and others have also likely read Bullinger as well. Some of the other authors that Wierwille read in forming his theology may also have been reputable and were likely read by other bible teachers. For example, Wierwille or at least his research staff may have gotten some material from Ernest L. Martin, an excellent biblical historian. As far as Wierwille originating biblical knowledge? I think we know that he mostly copied the work of others.
Great post, HCW. And, Evan & Def, about the mainstream chruch not knowing about The Way; I'm not so sure. The pastor of the small church we attended briefly in Huntington WV knew about it and he was only a part-time minister. He came to visit with Deb and I and, when I told him about our background, he said he was familiar with The Way and had a copy of PFAL and Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. It was a nondenominational pentecostal praise & worship style church, so maybe that's a factor.
It may be that VP's teaching on speaking in tonuges sent a stronger spasm through the evangelical Pentecostal arm than it did in the main body of the Church.
As far as the independent thinking argument goes, I think it was a matter of who you dealt with. I had some WC leadership that encouraged us to work the Word and ask questions and others who didn't. I suspect the ones who felt least prepared to deal with questions from grads tended to squelch them while those who loved research and study themselves welcomed them.
I'd agree Evan that most mainstream christian folks read about TWI mainly for the sake of writing an anti cult blurb. It wasn't my intent to suggest they studied him as a contemporary.
BUT. TWI was much more than an extremely minor outpost on the Christian landscape of the day. We were considered the second most dangerous cult in the world. Virtually every cult book, everyone who was anyone on the anti-cult scene has us at the top of their list. Every speech on cults, mentioned TWI.
Ted Patrick, the most infamous deprogrammer of them all, regularly kidnapped wafers for deprogramming. Some were successful, some weren't. TWI was the subject of national news stories. I know of one time, when the 7th & 9th Corps was at Emporia one of the national evening news teams came there to do a feature story on TWI for the evening news.
I can't speak for Chuck Swindoll, specifically and only mentioned him as he strikes me as one who does his homework before speaking out on a topic.
Again. I don't care enough about it to argue, but it seems like some were unaware of just how "big" TWI once was. Thing eraly y heated up when the Jim Jones cult did their poisoned Kool-aid thing.
Through the early to mid 80's we "dangerous cult" rap was fading as info about the para-military training proved to be a the simple state of KS sanctioned Hunter safety course. The cult rap faded even more after VPW died because on of the central tenants to cultishness is that they haev a charismatic leader. The anti cultists never considered LCM as charismatic enough to carry on the cult. Plus the word was out that TWI was shrinking into obscurity.
Now nobody cares enough about it to give it a second look.
In the interest of helping to provide some fuller account of what Wierwille/TWI maintained about heteros and allos, I wish I could find my copy of the Advanced Class Syllabus that was distributed at the 1975 AC.
I think it was in those materials that TWI definitions for allos and heteros were presented, positing an indefiniteness/definiteness distinction between allos and heteros -- maintaining that in some instances the distinction between the two words was with respect to number and in other instances with respect to kind.
That AC syllabus, however, also included a version of the PFAL syllabus that was older than the syllabus then being distributed with PFAL class materials. The allos/heteros stuff might have appeared in the old PFAL syllabus -- or even in some other TWI materials. I am somewhat confident, however, that it appeared either in the Advanced Class Syllabus or in the PFAL syllabus enclosed with it, in the same green binder.
It seemed to present rather fully the Wierwille/TWI position on what those words indicate in Greek biblical manuscripts.
I just dug out my old Advanced Class Syllabus from 1985. On page 10 there's something of a "pie chart" of the different 9 "manifestations" - "Heteros" on one side, for "Believing" and "Kinds of Tongues" - both separated from the remainder of the group categorized "Allos".
It reads above the chart:
Numeric (quantity, number) distinctions of the manifestations of the spirit:
allos -another, when more than two may be involved.
heteros- another, when only two may be involved.
Below the chart it reads:
The generic (kind, class, group) distinctions of allos and heteros are as follows:
allos- another, when the others may be in the same category. Galatians 1:7; II Corinthians 11:4.
heteros - another, when the others may be of a different category. Galatians 1:6; II Corinthians 11:4 (2nd and 3rd); Matthew 15:30.
I think this old syllabus is destined for the auction block.
I think that must be it. I had thought, however, that an indefinite/definite distinction between the words was pressed more emphatically than that (i.e. that heteros, the one having a definite aspect about its usage, was said to mean "another" when only two ~are~ involved, or when the others ~are~ of a different category), and that the words definite and indefinite were used in describing the distinction.
I might be conflating what I read in the AC syllabus, however, with what I read from other TWI materials or from Bullinger.
Yeah H, as a cult, TWI was fairly major at its peak.
What I was addressing is a point you didn't raise, but that I've heard people make in the past: that Wierwille influenced the church to a great degree. Some have claimed that the church was largely social gospel, non-biblical in focus, and like, nobody even jogged or did health food seriously until the Way brought it out. I reject that completely.
Even the way's great growth period was more a function of the times than some great thing our fave little cult was doing at the time. Wierwille's genius was apparent, though, in seeing the potential in the Jesus movement in SF and glomming on to that. He tapped the angst & rebellion of a generation and they came streaming in. Scantily clad babes didn't seem to hurt, either...
I'd agree Evan that most mainstream christian folks read about TWI mainly for the sake of writing an anti cult blurb. It wasn't my intent to suggest they studied him as a contemporary.
BUT. TWI was much more than an extremely minor outpost on the Christian landscape of the day. We were considered the second most dangerous cult in the world. Virtually every cult book, everyone who was anyone on the anti-cult scene has us at the top of their list. Every speech on cults, mentioned TWI.
Ted Patrick, the most infamous deprogrammer of them all, regularly kidnapped wafers for deprogramming. Some were successful, some weren't. TWI was the subject of national news stories. I know of one time, when the 7th & 9th Corps was at Emporia one of the national evening news teams came there to do a feature story on TWI for the evening news.
I can't speak for Chuck Swindoll, specifically and only mentioned him as he strikes me as one who does his homework before speaking out on a topic.
Again. I don't care enough about it to argue, but it seems like some were unaware of just how "big" TWI once was. Thing eraly y heated up when the Jim Jones cult did their poisoned Kool-aid thing.
Through the early to mid 80's we "dangerous cult" rap was fading as info about the para-military training proved to be a the simple state of KS sanctioned Hunter safety course. The cult rap faded even more after VPW died because on of the central tenants to cultishness is that they haev a charismatic leader. The anti cultists never considered LCM as charismatic enough to carry on the cult. Plus the word was out that TWI was shrinking into obscurity.
Now nobody cares enough about it to give it a second look.
Yeah, back in the day we got a lot of coverage, but that doesn't mean we had wide awareness.
If half of the parents were like mine and got involved in anti-cult groups, then we are looking at 200,000 people, add 10 percent for concerned pastors and missionaries and 1 percent for newspeople and we are looking at about 225,000 people who had a passion against us. In a nation of 200 million (70s and 80s) that isn't a lot.
Now I believe vpw inspired the TBN or prosperity crowd, look at Paul Crouch, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar or Benny Hinn or Fred Price and you'll see stuff almost ripped from the old orange book itself.
Clearly, Wierwille got those definitions 100% backwards, and it appears deliberately so (that is, it wasn't just confusing the words and definitions, but actively getting them wrong, misunderstanding their meanings and teaching the wrong thing).
He had to know that Bullinger taught the opposite definitions. I refuse to ascribe idiocy to him.
allos - another when there are more than two involved.
heteros - another when there are only two involved.
These two definitions seem to be fairly consistent from what I have read. It appears the question lies in which one of those meanings, allos or heteros, is refering to another of the same kind or another of a different kind? I think that is where the inconsistancy lies and where the confusion is steming from?
These two definitions seem to be fairly consistent from what I have read. It appears the question lies in which one of those meanings, allos or heteros, is refering to another of the same kind or another of a different kind? I think that is where the inconsistancy lies and where the confusion is steming from?
To answer your first comment, when Jesus says "turn the other cheek," he uses allos, which is inconsistent with Wierwille's definition, your declaration that the usages are "fairly consistent" notwithstanding (unless, of course, Jesus was counting butt cheeks too, but somehow I doubt that). In Luke 4:43, there's a reference to "other cities." Clearly, more than two are involved. But guess which word is used? That's right, heteros, the word that's only supposed to be used when only two are involved. Wrong definition for both words.
As for the rest, we've been going over that through this whole thread!
Wierwille states in the class that allos is another of a different kind, and heteros is another of the same kind. The opposite is true. Wierwille apparently wrote this in the first printing of PFAL, but it is not in subsequent printings.
I believe the expression "turn the other cheek" is a figure of speech here in the Word. If that is the case, then the definition VPW provided for allos may (or it may not) be the correct one. But there are certainly much better ways to do a word study than simply point out a scripture in which a particular Greek word appears to prove a particular point. (I'll give you an illustration of this at the end of this post.) And I think you will agree. So for further consideration, the word "allos" is translated and it appears translated in the bible as:
another - 68 times
more - 1 time
one - 4 times
other - 74 times
other man - 4 times
other things - 3 times
some - 11 times
another man's - 1 time
otherwise - 1 time
another (with tis) 1 time
Allos is also translated with a long o (allws) or short o (allos). With the long o it is translated as: otherwise once.
Heteros likewise has a long o and short o. (ws or os). With the long o it is also translated as: otherwise 1 time.
Heteros (were it is with the short o) appears translated as:
another - 42 times
else - 1 time
other - 41 times
strange - 1 time
another place - 1 time
another psalm - 1 time
next day - 2 times
other thing - 3 times
one another - 1 time
some other - 3 times
Other forms of heteros include:
Heterodidaskaleo = teach another doctrine - 1 time
Heteroglossos = of another tongue - 1 time
Heterozugeo = be unequally yoked together - 1 time.
What I found interesting to note is that heteros is translated as: "strange" and not as other or another. It appears this one time in Jude 7 - Even as Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange = heteros flesh...
Depending on your POV it would appear then that heteros could be refering to the same kind, but I am not sure if the "strange flesh" this verse is refering to is specifically refering to homosex, (it could be implying having sex with the same flesh, which would be strange) or if here it is refering to having sex with animals. That could also mean - strange flesh (which would then be of a different kind - a different flesh).
Perhaps context and usage in the Word of God defines the meanings of these terms far more than any hard and fast rules someone sets forth? I will admit a word study on these two different words certainly warrants a much closer observation than anyone here has done so far. From what I've seen, just picking out a single verse in the bible in which the word allos or heteros appears I don't believe is going to give someone specific insight on the exact definition of either one of these terms. We readily see this from the record in Jude 7 - by handling the Word of God from a simplistic cursory study of a single verse of scripture. Likewise it won't be achieved by going to any other verse in which these words appear and doing the same simplistic study - unless one chooses to do a much broader word study on these words to determine their exact meaning and definition.
I believe the expression "turn the other cheek" is a figure of speech here in the Word. If that is the case, then the definition VPW provided for allos may (or it may not) be the correct one.
I disagree. The language in the figure still has to be consistent. This is a plain old ordinary every day error.
quote:
But there are certainly much better ways to do a word study than simply point out a scripture in which a particular Greek word appears to prove a particular point.
And yet, that is what VPW did. Quite often, no less.
quote:
Perhaps context and usage in the Word of God defines the meanings of these terms far more than any hard and fast rules someone sets forth?
Precisely, and that includes the hard and fast rules set forth by VPW, which would mean that he was (drumroll please) wrong about the mathematical exactness and scientific precision of the words as he defined them.
Perhaps context and usage in the Word of God defines the meanings of these terms far more than any hard and fast rules someone sets forth?
Precisely, and that includes the hard and fast rules set forth by VPW, which would mean that he was (drumroll please) wrong about the mathematical exactness and scientific precision of the words as he defined them.
I can get with that. I'd be willing to chance it & say that it could be more accurately put this way:
God's word, in its infinite perfection, CAN, in places where God intended, be mathematically exact and scientifically precise. The more I study the Bible without the tunnel-visioned qualities of wayhead, the more I see how perfect it is in that it can be applied to a wide variety of instances, circumstances, etc. in many ways.
The "many ways" are specifically accurate in their applications, as one applys scripture in a GODLY fashion, as opposed to application in a self-serving capacity.
I remember back in 76-78 while in art school I was excited to find a group of Christians at the school. I got involved in the prayer/Bible study group. I'd go to the Bible study during the day in college and then go to a twig in the evenings, sometimes on the same day. The TWI group would highly discourage the, "what does that scripture say to you" POV that the Bible study group would equally as strongly ENcourage.
I took my first PFAL class in 76 AFTER being involved in the other study group. I was not yet committed to TWI and went to both groups as a quiet observer, not throwing in my two cents very much. It was an interesting dicotomy to me, how both groups who claimed commitment to God had such a different approach concerning His word.
Fast forwarding to today. I now believe that the whole mathematical exactness, scientific precision thing did more to usher in the Gestapo, Nazi-like legalism TWI fell prey to than any other specific doctrine. I now believe is is the perfection of God in his choice of words that allows a study like this one we see here on heteros/allos to show many (in a category, being "other) applications.
This thinking flies in the face of the "only ONE interpretation" hypothesis of VPW. IF there truly is, in fact, ONLY one "interpretation" of each and every word in God's word WHY then do we need His gift of Holy Spirit to lead us into "all the truth" of righteousness (right living)???
What is holy spirit for if not to guide us in ways that we can NOT see? What does it do if not give us a living connection to God himself? God, who is a living Father to us can certainly guide us and say, "in this situation, you apply it THIS way."
In another situation he may say apply it THAT way.
If I can say, "Tommorrow, I'm going to drive my car around the big banked curve, on my way from the river bank where I was fishing; going to the bank where I do my banking. Once there I will withraw some money to pay for my basketball lessons so I can work on my bank shot, so I can make it to the NBA where I can earn some serious bank."
Why can't God? With ANY word He chooses, whenever he chooses? Why couldn't He even teach us a NEW application of words, or principles found in his word?
Yeah, I'd agree VP WAS not only wrong to install such legalism into the ministry he was hypocritically teaching out of both sides of his mouth by teaching "freedom in Christ."
Makes sense. Got me thinking about the different quotations in the Bible- no time to look up the details at the moment, but more often than not, when God "quotes himself" the new context practically in no way resembles the old context the words used were set in.
That always kind of bothered me- since I thought everything was so black and white- that there was only one logical interpretation possible. Apparently not..
Just another thought. I remember reading the Bullinger stuff about Gnome, or quotation. Sometimes the quotations agreed closely with the Septuagint, sometimes agreed more closely with the hebrew manuscripts, sometimes neither. Rarely could you describe the quotations word for word. This troubled me.. God Almighty reading "thoroughly" instead of "throughly".
Maybe all of this word for word, verbatim philosophy is not all that it is cracked up to be- at least my opinion.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
9
11
8
Popular Days
Mar 18
16
Mar 21
13
Mar 23
12
Mar 24
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 23 posts
def59 9 posts
Jbarrax 11 posts
Belle 8 posts
Popular Days
Mar 18 2005
16 posts
Mar 21 2005
13 posts
Mar 23 2005
12 posts
Mar 24 2005
12 posts
Raf
Grassy a--
umm, I meant, Gracias.
I expect Galen will confirm what everyone's been saying on that topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
I dunno def. Its possible. I met 100's of folks giving tours of HQ on Sundays, during Ambassador One weekends, special events, etc. I was always around, usually with a camera during most of the 80's if there was a big deal event it was my job to be there. The even imported me to Emporia to shoot a couple of the Corps weddings.
Thanks for the complements def. I apprecialte your opinions.
I knew my TWI experience wasn't the norm but I had no idea things were so bad on the field. Discussions were not only encouraged at the root you could "get into trouble" for NOT speaking up. At least I did. I did a lot of work directly for VPW and the trustees. Spent a good bit of time in & out of the motorcoaches, in meetings of one sort or another.
VP actually got more than irritated at me one time when I asked him what he thought I should do on a project he had asked me to do. He told me, "You're the professional, don't ask ME what to do you should TELL me what you're Going to do. I'll tell you what I'm thinking and you just go do what you do. If I could do what YOU do, I wouldn't need you around here, would I?"
"Nope." I said. "Cool then I'll do it & show you what I'M thinking, then we can talk about it & finishe it up."
He said "OK. Just call Karen when you're ready."
I thought most things on the field went like that. I'm seeing now that the believer that came to visit on weekends were not a representative sampling of how things were, nor were my experiences when I went out on the field. I mean I knew people were on their best behavior when HQ staffers or VP was around; but really...telling people to do it again until you come up with the same thing we already know...rediculous.
The research dept would discuss and sometimes argue about stuff a lot. We'd get articles submitted from the field for TWMag, even JAL's, and say stuff like, "We can't print this crap!" We'd send it back to the author, under a deadline, "If you don't correct it and get it back by _________. You won't get in the mag."Back in the day, when it was in vogue to speak out against cults, "lots" of mainstream ministers would read exerpts from TWI books, TWMag etc. as parts of their presentations. This was about 20 or so years ago though.
Not too many know & even fewer care about TWI, today, although it IS firmly ensconsed in ALL of the cult books
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Some good points in HCW's lost post a few above.
Wait, which long post?
:)-->
But this isn't one of them:
I'm pretty sure he hasn't. VP & The Way were an extremely minor outpost on the Christian landscape of the day. The only thing Wierwille was read for was to prepare an anti-cult blurb. Even then, he wasn't read too well by most. Mercifully, Wierwille's influence was minor to none on the wider body of Christ.
My take
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Good point Evan. However, I want to add that Wierwille read Bullinger and others have also likely read Bullinger as well. Some of the other authors that Wierwille read in forming his theology may also have been reputable and were likely read by other bible teachers. For example, Wierwille or at least his research staff may have gotten some material from Ernest L. Martin, an excellent biblical historian. As far as Wierwille originating biblical knowledge? I think we know that he mostly copied the work of others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Great post, HCW. And, Evan & Def, about the mainstream chruch not knowing about The Way; I'm not so sure. The pastor of the small church we attended briefly in Huntington WV knew about it and he was only a part-time minister. He came to visit with Deb and I and, when I told him about our background, he said he was familiar with The Way and had a copy of PFAL and Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. It was a nondenominational pentecostal praise & worship style church, so maybe that's a factor.
It may be that VP's teaching on speaking in tonuges sent a stronger spasm through the evangelical Pentecostal arm than it did in the main body of the Church.
As far as the independent thinking argument goes, I think it was a matter of who you dealt with. I had some WC leadership that encouraged us to work the Word and ask questions and others who didn't. I suspect the ones who felt least prepared to deal with questions from grads tended to squelch them while those who loved research and study themselves welcomed them.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
I'd agree Evan that most mainstream christian folks read about TWI mainly for the sake of writing an anti cult blurb. It wasn't my intent to suggest they studied him as a contemporary.
BUT. TWI was much more than an extremely minor outpost on the Christian landscape of the day. We were considered the second most dangerous cult in the world. Virtually every cult book, everyone who was anyone on the anti-cult scene has us at the top of their list. Every speech on cults, mentioned TWI.
Ted Patrick, the most infamous deprogrammer of them all, regularly kidnapped wafers for deprogramming. Some were successful, some weren't. TWI was the subject of national news stories. I know of one time, when the 7th & 9th Corps was at Emporia one of the national evening news teams came there to do a feature story on TWI for the evening news.
I can't speak for Chuck Swindoll, specifically and only mentioned him as he strikes me as one who does his homework before speaking out on a topic.
Again. I don't care enough about it to argue, but it seems like some were unaware of just how "big" TWI once was. Thing eraly y heated up when the Jim Jones cult did their poisoned Kool-aid thing.
Through the early to mid 80's we "dangerous cult" rap was fading as info about the para-military training proved to be a the simple state of KS sanctioned Hunter safety course. The cult rap faded even more after VPW died because on of the central tenants to cultishness is that they haev a charismatic leader. The anti cultists never considered LCM as charismatic enough to carry on the cult. Plus the word was out that TWI was shrinking into obscurity.
Now nobody cares enough about it to give it a second look.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
In the interest of helping to provide some fuller account of what Wierwille/TWI maintained about heteros and allos, I wish I could find my copy of the Advanced Class Syllabus that was distributed at the 1975 AC.
I think it was in those materials that TWI definitions for allos and heteros were presented, positing an indefiniteness/definiteness distinction between allos and heteros -- maintaining that in some instances the distinction between the two words was with respect to number and in other instances with respect to kind.
That AC syllabus, however, also included a version of the PFAL syllabus that was older than the syllabus then being distributed with PFAL class materials. The allos/heteros stuff might have appeared in the old PFAL syllabus -- or even in some other TWI materials. I am somewhat confident, however, that it appeared either in the Advanced Class Syllabus or in the PFAL syllabus enclosed with it, in the same green binder.
It seemed to present rather fully the Wierwille/TWI position on what those words indicate in Greek biblical manuscripts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Cynic,
I just dug out my old Advanced Class Syllabus from 1985. On page 10 there's something of a "pie chart" of the different 9 "manifestations" - "Heteros" on one side, for "Believing" and "Kinds of Tongues" - both separated from the remainder of the group categorized "Allos".
It reads above the chart:
Numeric (quantity, number) distinctions of the manifestations of the spirit:
allos -another, when more than two may be involved.
heteros- another, when only two may be involved.
Below the chart it reads:
The generic (kind, class, group) distinctions of allos and heteros are as follows:
allos- another, when the others may be in the same category. Galatians 1:7; II Corinthians 11:4.
heteros - another, when the others may be of a different category. Galatians 1:6; II Corinthians 11:4 (2nd and 3rd); Matthew 15:30.
I think this old syllabus is destined for the auction block.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Danny,
Thanks for the info.
I think that must be it. I had thought, however, that an indefinite/definite distinction between the words was pressed more emphatically than that (i.e. that heteros, the one having a definite aspect about its usage, was said to mean "another" when only two ~are~ involved, or when the others ~are~ of a different category), and that the words definite and indefinite were used in describing the distinction.
I might be conflating what I read in the AC syllabus, however, with what I read from other TWI materials or from Bullinger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Danny, if you're going to auction it off you might want to use E-Bay.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Yeah H, as a cult, TWI was fairly major at its peak.
What I was addressing is a point you didn't raise, but that I've heard people make in the past: that Wierwille influenced the church to a great degree. Some have claimed that the church was largely social gospel, non-biblical in focus, and like, nobody even jogged or did health food seriously until the Way brought it out. I reject that completely.
Even the way's great growth period was more a function of the times than some great thing our fave little cult was doing at the time. Wierwille's genius was apparent, though, in seeing the potential in the Jesus movement in SF and glomming on to that. He tapped the angst & rebellion of a generation and they came streaming in. Scantily clad babes didn't seem to hurt, either...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
A partial quote from Segment 21 [the remainder available upon request]
"John 19:32:
Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the
other which was crucified with him.
Who was the other who was crucified with him? Luke said that when
they led Jesus out they led the malefactors with him. That's the
accuracy of verse 32 of John 19. Isn't that tremedous?
The soldiers came and brake the legs of the first and of the other
who was the one who was crucified with him when he was crucified, who is
the malefactor. That's right. Then verse 33:
John 19:33:
But when they came ["but having come" is the original text] to
Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
Well if you have the four crucified, you have one here, one here,
Jesus in the center. They brake the legs of the first and of the other
but having come to Jesus. The other who was crucified is the
malefactor, the one who was led with Jesus. So John 19 is so
tremendously accurate it just shocks you when you see the great truth
that it presents.
They break the legs of the first and of the other, and of the other
who was crucified with him. When they came to Jesus they found that he
was dead already.
Now, I'd like to go back to that other chart to show you some
words. That word "other" in verse 32 is a tremendous key because there
are two words that are translated "other" in the Bible. One word is
this word heteros. The other Greek word
is the word allos. These two words make
all the difference between truth and error. They are both translated "other."
Now here in the gospel of John in the nineteenth chapter and verse
32 the soldiers came and brake the legs of the first and of the other.
The word "other" is the word allos. The word
allos is used when there are more than two, more than two of
a different kind. Two malefactors, two thieves make more that two. So they brake
the legs of the first and of the other who was the malefactor of a different kind.
That's why they use the word allos for other.
While in the gospel of Luke, I'm going to go back to the gospel of
Luke to chapter 23. And listen to this in verse 32 which we've already
read but I'm covering the word "other."
Luke 23:32:
And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put
to death.
The word for "other" here is not the word allos but it is
heteros. Because they were two of the same kind. Two other, but
they were both malefactors. Isn't that wonderful! You talk about the accuracy and
the integrity of God's Word. What a tremedous truth you find in this
revelation from God's wonderful matchless Word regarding the others
crucified with him.
So here you have it all wrapped up in a nutshell when it comes to
the others crucified with Jesus. When Jesus was led forth they led two
malefactors with him. Later, after they had crucified Jesus they parted
his garments, they cast lots, they sat down, they put up an accusation,
THEN finally they brought two robbers and they crucified them. Two plus
two make four. Jesus in the midst. And when the soldiers came they
brake the legs of the first and of the other, the allos, of a different
kind but having come to Jesus they found that he was dead already. Why?
Becasue the Word of God said that no one would ever break his legs.
They didn't take his life upon Calvary's cross. He laid it down.
He gave up his life. He didn't die because they crucified him he died
because he gave himself for you and for me. This is the accuracy with
which the Word of God fits."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Yeah, back in the day we got a lot of coverage, but that doesn't mean we had wide awareness.
If half of the parents were like mine and got involved in anti-cult groups, then we are looking at 200,000 people, add 10 percent for concerned pastors and missionaries and 1 percent for newspeople and we are looking at about 225,000 people who had a passion against us. In a nation of 200 million (70s and 80s) that isn't a lot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Now I believe vpw inspired the TBN or prosperity crowd, look at Paul Crouch, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar or Benny Hinn or Fred Price and you'll see stuff almost ripped from the old orange book itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
SEGMENT - 62
Every time a manifestation of the true Spirit of God is in
operation, it is always to profit, it's actively profiting the person.
That's right. Now, in verse 8 of chapter 12, in verse 8: "For" -- for,
for now sets it in correspondence with and helps us to understand what
the profit it. Verses 8 -- 9 & 10 tell us what the profit is in each
one of the manifestations. It says in verse 8:
I Corinthians 12:8
For to one [to one] is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to
another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
They have said these are gifts, doesn't say gifts, they are talking
about manifestations.
Verses 9 & 10:
To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by
the same Spirit;
To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another
discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another
the interpretation of tongues:
There you have all nine of them, and only once is it referred to as
a gift and that's regarding healing. All the rest of them, it doesn't
say anything about a gift, they're still talking about manifestations.
So, the healing must be a manifestation, which I'm going to explain to
you a little later.
But they use these verses to teach something very erroneous. They
say, "For to one," in verse 8, "to one," like meaning to you, for
instance, "is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom;" to another person
over here, the word of knowledge; to another one over here, faith or
believing; to another one, he has the God given gifts of healing; to
another, he can work miracles. That's a contradiction of verse 7,
because He just told us in verse 7, the manifestations, all of them, are
given to every man.
Then why can it say "to one?" Well, when these "to one" boys get
around me, I let them read "to one," but I make them turn right around
and read verse 11, because, in verse 11 it says:
Verse 11:
But all [of] these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to
every man severally {as he will}.
Ah-hah! Then I say, "Alright! You said "one," verse 11 says
"severally," now you explain it. And they don't, they just get angry at
me. I didn't write the book. They get angry at me, why get angry?
Because you're cutting across their theology. A man can stand almost
anything, except to change from error to truth. That's right. That's
the last thing he wants to do, is to change from error to truth.
Because he wants to stay in his error and get it corroborated so he can
continue because he's afraid of losing face.
Well, there's another thing they tell me, you know what they say,
these "faith blasters" and unbelievers -- many of them born again
Christians, you know what they say? "Tongues is the least important,
God put it last." Boy, do I like that one. You know why? I make them
read it -- I make them read it, because it isn't last. It says, "divers
kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues." Then I
say, "Is it last? -- Is it last?" They say, "No." Well, I say, "You
said it was last. They say, "Well it-it's ALMOST last." Ah, no-no-no,
you said it was last. Huh-hah! And I always love that argument,
because it isn't last, it's second last. That's right, second last.
And I always pray that, whenever somebody comes with one of those
arguments, that they are members of a family, at least five or six
children in their family, and that they're the youngest in the family.
Because, they have just said, God put it last because it was least
important. Of course, we saw He didn't put it last, He put it second
last. Then I just hope they're the youngest in the family, because they
have just said he's least important. So I say, "O.K., you're the fifth
member of your family, you're the youngest in the family. Then you
amount to the least, is that right?" Whoow! Yeah, hah-hah! I didn't
say it, they're the one that said it. That's right. They said it.
Hey, I want to tell you something else, something has to be last.
If you've got two or three things something has to be last, and just
because it's last does not make it least. Many times you write a letter
you'll even say, "Well, this is the last point that I'd like to share
with you today. But, I'd like to inform you it's not least important."
But you see, anything to hash the Word to pieces, anything to discredit
the Word and to elevate man's ego, that's all.
Look, this "for to one"--that "to one," in verse 8, is a tremendous
word. I'd like again to take a paragraph out of this book on "Receiving
the holy spirit Today:"
The Greek word is ho -- H. O., which is the dative case of the
relative pronoun hos -- H. O. S. Being in the dative case, the word ho
can be translated either "to one" or "for one," and from the context, it
should be translated "for one."
"One" is a relative pronoun and means--and is used interchangeably
with the word "that." A relative pronoun refers to the nearest noun as
its antecedent. "To profit" is an infinitive and an infinitive is a
verbal used as a noun. Therefore, using the noun in the place of the
pronoun, the verse would read "for that profit." That's a tremendous
thing. "For a word of wisdom is given by the Spirit FOR that profit"--
that profit that the word of wisdom brings.
You talk about usage of a word semantically, how do you like THAT
one? Nobody can touch the accuracy of God's Word, it sets there like a
diamond--a great bulwark.
Verse 8:
For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; ...
And so on, down the line. Finally, after verse 10--eh, at the end
of verse 10, it says, "all of these" -- eh, tongues; interpretation of
tongues - all of these nine now have been given. Why does it say "for
to one"? In the church, as I read to you from I Corinthians, chapter 1,
- in the operation of the church, I operate all nine - so do you. But
now, when you and I are ministering in a specific situation; I'm
believing God for the word of knowledge and I get it; you're believing
God for the word of wisdom, what to do with it. That's what it means,
"for to one" - "for to one is given" - so on and so forth. "For to one
is given," that's its meaning all through verse 8, 9 and 10.
Every person born again of God's Spirit has the privilege of
operating all nine manifestations of the spirit, but he will operate at
least one most effectively, not because he couldn't operate all the rest
as effectively, but because of his believing. For the believing
determines how effectively you operate the manifestation. You're not
operated BY the manifestation, you OPERATE the manifestation. That's
right.
So, also in this particular section, the words "another" -
A.N.O.T.H.E.R., are very interesting.
Verse 8:
For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the
word of knowledge ...
Verse 9:
To another faith ...
That word "another" is always the word allos meaning "another, when
there are, of the same kind, more involved." But, there are two
manifestations of the spirit in these verses 8, 9 and 10 that do not use
the word allos, it uses the word
heteros, meaning that God the Giver and
the recipient are the only ones that benefit, and one of those is faith
or believing.
You see, once God gives me revelation, then the manifestation of
believing is of such a nature that I, personally, have to believe to
bring it to pass according to the revelation I've received. It doesn't
benefit you at all, it's just for MY believing, I must believe. That's
why the word heteros is used with the manifestation of faith in this
section. And the other usage is in kinds of tongues--divers kinds of
tongues--kinds of tongues.
Speaking in tongues is the ONLY other manifestation using heteros
and it singly blesses me because, when I speak in tongues, I edify the
spirit of God which is in me. I feed and nurture it, it benefits me, it
doesn't benefit you, just me. That's why the word heteros is used with
those two manifestations and every other place the word allos is used
with the manifestation. And when you go through verses 8, 9 and 10,
they're all manifestations with the exception of one. It says "to
another," in verse 9, "the GIFTS of healing." Why does it say "gifts"
with healing when it's a manifestation? Very simple, because it's the
ONLY manifestation that's a gift.
Every time you're healed it's a gift to you. A doctor can set my
arm if it were broken--he could set it, he could not heal it. It has to
be a gift according to the laws of nature that God instituted in the
beginning. Every time a person is healed of a cold, a simple little old
headache, anything else, it's always a gift--always a gift.
Now, here in the critical Greek text, it's in the plural--the
Aramaic has it in the singular. As I understand the great accuracy of
God's Word here, and I've spoken to many medical men about it, they
understand it in this light: for instance, let's say that I'm healed of
a headache tonight, and next week I'm healed of a headache. That's
gifts (plural) of healing--same disease but healed twice or more times
of the same thing. That's gifts.
Also, here in Corinthians in the 30th verse, it talks of gifts of
HEALINGS--healings--or something. You see, healings is in the plural
because, if I'm healed of a headache tonight and if I'm healed of
arthritis, two entirely different diseases, that's HEALINGS. Now, every
doctor knows this, every man in every medical profession knows it. Why
doesn't the church know it? Because the church doesn't come to the
Word. That's what the Word says, that's what it means. That's why the
manifestation--the manifestation is always a gift when it comes to
healing - none of the rest of them. Speaking in tongues is not a gift.
No, it's a manifestation. It doesn't do anything but edify the spirit
in me as I operate it. But the healing of the human body - it's a gift
to you, the recipient, and it's a gift that God must, by revelation,
make available. As Peter said, "Such as I have, I give; in the name of
Jesus Christ, rise up an walk."
Putting all these nine manifestations of 8, 9 and 10 together, you
come, by their very nature in these manifestations, in the groups where
they divide. They're not given in this order in I Corinthians, they're
simply listed there, they're not set in order. But, by their very
nature, they divide as follows: speaking in tongues and the associated
manifestation is interpretation of tongues and prophecy. These are
worship manifestations - utterance. Then the revelation manifestations:
a word of knowledge, a word of wisdom, discerning of spirits. And,
under group three, the power or the action manifestations: faith,
healing and miracles. That's how they, by their very nature, fall into
those categories.
Now we go to verse 11, verse 11 of this twelfth chapter. Now it
says in verse 11:
Verse 11:
{But} all [of] these [all of these -- all nine of these manifestations]
worketh [The word "worketh" is the word energemata -- energize by] that
one and {the} selfsame Spirit, [one and selfsame spirit] ...
That's a tremendous thing, isn't it? You see, verses 8 to 10
really are a subordinate clause referring to the profit in the
manifestations of verse 7. Now these three verses; 8, 9 and 10,
technically and grammatically speaking, should be a parentheses in
correspondence with verse 7, elaborating on the profit. Then, in verse
11, the Word of God again takes up where verse 7 terminates with the
conjunction "but." "But," of verse 11, sets it in contrast with.
"But," understand?
Now, here, "one and the selfsame Spirit," you see these words?
This is a unique triple reflective: the word "one," the word "self" and
the word "same," with the emphasis on ONE, SELF and SAME. Isn't that
wonderful? "Dividing" is distributing -- distributing.
Verse 11:
But all these [are energized by] {worketh} that one and {the} selfsame
[that triple reflective] Spirit ...
That's right. All are energized by the one Spirit. Who is the one
Spirit? GOD! God, when He gave me the gift. The gift is the God-given
ability. Who energizes it? He does! He energizes the gift. But who
operates the manifestations? You do! Verse 11, watch it carefully:
Verse 11:
{But} all these worketh that one and {the} selfsame Spirit, dividing to
every man severally [dividing to every man severally] as he [God wills].
That's what they teach, and most of the translations -- most of the
translations that come out today have he, the pronoun "He" in a capital
"H," upper case "H." Well, people, He has just told us, back in verse
7, that the manifestation's given to every man. If it's given to every
man, then how can He turn right around and, in verse 11, say: "dividing
to every man severally as God wills?"
God doesn't like you very well, so He won't let you speak in
tongues. No, you can pray 'til you're blue in the face -- maybe you
haven't fasted enough; maybe you haven't lifted "holy hands" enough;
maybe you haven't sat on the front pew often enough and said "Glory
Hallelujah," or put enough in the collection plate. He doesn't love
you.
God's no respecter of what? Persons! But, you see, instead of
working the accuracy of the Word, we just hash it to pieces, ordinarily.
Look, just upon the surface you can see that there must be something
wrong.
"All of these manifestations are energized by that one and selfsame
Spirit, dividing to every man severally." The word "severally" is this
wonderful word which we have had before in this class. It is the word
idios -- it is the word idios, translated "private." "Know this first
that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
The word "private" is the word idios, and I told you it was used, I
believe, 144 times. That was the only place it was translated
"private." This is the ONLY place it's translated "severally," and it's
ALWAYS one's own or his own. See, "dividing to every man his own" --
HIS own, as HE -- HE who? God? NO! As the man wills.
"He" is a pronoun. Class, "he" is a pronoun. A pronoun is
controlled and governed by its closest associated noun. Right? Sure,
that's right. What is the closest noun to the pronoun "he" that
controls it? "Dividing to every man SEVERALLY." MAN is the noun, he is
the pronoun, as he -- HE, not God, as the man wills.
Suppose the man does not will to speak in tongues. Even if he
knows how, he won't do it. Suppose the man does not will to interpret.
Will he? No.
Divides into manifestation -- into evidence, always as the man
wills -- as HE wills. This is why "as he wills" is NOT as God wills
(because God has already set His will in verse 7 and every other place)
but in contrast as man wills to believe, and of course man cannot
believe beyond what he knows.
So, if we're not taught accurately the Word, he can't believe for
it. But, once you're taught accurately the Word, you know what's
available, know how to receive it, know what to do with it after you've
got it, you can manifest it.
So, we go back to I Corinthians, chapter 12. Having finished those
tremendous verses, we go back to verse 12 of this particular chapter.
Now, here in the twelfth verse of chapter 12, we begin with an
illustration setting forth now what He has just taught us in all the
rest of the verses, and we got it from the human body -- from the human
body.
Now the manifestations, I want to clarify this, are not the
members, but what the believers believed to receive. That's what they
are. Now the first word is the word "For" -- "For" in verse 12 of I
Corinthians 12 sets in correspondence this verse with verse 11 AND with
verse 7. Regarding "the profit as every man wills," now it sets it in
correspondence.
I Corinthians 12:12
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of
that one body, being many, are one body: so also is [what?] Christ.
That's right, "so also is Christ."
Verse 13:
For by one Spirit [were] {are} we all baptized into one body, ...
The body of Jesus Christ, his spirit. You see, one Father, we're
His children.
Verse 13 (continued):
... whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond {or free}; and
have been all made to drink [in] {into} one Spirit.
Verses 14 - 18:
*For the body is not [many members] {one member}, [but one] {but many}.
[That's right.]
If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body;
is it therefore not of the body? [sure.]
{And} if the ear [should] {shall} say, {Because} [i'm] {I am} not the
eye, [i'm] {I am} not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
If the whole body were an eye, where [would be] {were} the hearing? If
the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it
[has] {hath} pleased him.
So, my finger is there, physically speaking, because this is what
pleased Him, right? Sure. My hand pleased Him. Now, if the finger
says, "I'm not of the hand," we've got a little problem.
Verses 19-22:
And if they were all one member, where were the body?
But now are they many members, yet but one body.
And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again
the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble,
are necessary:
And the feeblest thing I know is speaking in tongues to the average
person, and it says it's the more necessary. That's right.
Verses 23-26:
And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable,
upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have
more abundant comeliness.
For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body
together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked.
That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should
have the same care one for another.
And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one
member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
Verse 27:
Now ye are the body of Christ, [but you're a member in particular in
that body] {and members in particular}.
And then come verses 28 and 29 and 30 -- real difficult verses:
Verses 28-30:
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily
prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings,
helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of
miracles?
Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all
interpret?
Then they stop and they say "No, they don't. See, not everybody
can interpret, not everybody can speak in tongues." Just told us,
earlier, now, everybody had the manifestation. You can't get out of it
that easy!
Well, it's really something, it's REALLY something when you work
the integrity and the accuracy of this Word in this section. You see,
God has set some in the church, and then He talks about the ministries;
apostles, prophets, teachers -- those are ministries. Then he gets into
manifestations: miracles, gifts of healing -- helps, governments.
"Diversities" in verse 28 is the word genos -- genus, those who
have a genus of tongues. You see, some people speak in tongues and
interpret in a believers meeting. But, boy, some people, when THEY
speak in tongues and interpret, you've had it! That's it! They have a
genus of speaking in tongues -- a genos. Then, in verse 29:
"Are all apostles? Are all teachers? Are all prophets? Are all
workers of miracles?" And the words "are" are in italics. If you'd
like to REALLY get them upset sometimes, leave the italics out and read
it without the question marks: "All apostles, all teachers, all
prophets, all workers of miracles, all have the gifts of healing, all do
speak in tongues, all do INTERPRET!" There were no question marks in
the originals, no periods, no semicolons.
But I do not believe that's the way it can be handled because of
the double negative that's used there in the critical Greek text --
although the Aramaic would not substantiate that either.
I have a literal translation of verses 28, 29 and 30, I'd like to
share with you, literally from the original Greek and comparing it with
the Aramaic. Listen to this:
Verse 28: (LITERAL)
So God has placed some in the church having the ministry of apostles,
prophets and teachers. There are some who minister most effectively as
miracle workers. Some who are VERY effective in ministering the
blessings of healings. Some who are very adept in ministering as helps
and governments. And some whose ministry is diversity of tongues.
That's right. So you see, God's order -- God's order is that the
greatness of this Word should live. Then:
Verse 29: (LITERAL)
Are all apostles? No, in the church, no. Are all prophets in the
church? No. Do all speak in tongues in the church?
No, if they did, you'd never get home if you had a congregation of
a hundred. How'd you ever get chicken on Sunday noon if everybody spoke
in tongues? But, inside the church, it doesn't say in this verse they
couldn't do this. That's right.
Verse 30: (LITERAL)
Are all the gifts of healing in operation in the church? (No, but it
doesn't say that everybody could not minister healing.) Do all speak
with tongues? No! (But inside of the church, all these are in
operation.
That's what it says. Then comes this great thirty-first verse:
Verse 31:
But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more
excellent way.
Well, what's the best gifts? Of all the five gift ministries,
there's apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers -- what's the best
gifts? Depends on what's needed -- depends on what's needed. In an
area where they're mostly non-Christian, the best gift for THAT area
would be the ministry of an evangelist. If everybody's converted --
born again of God's Spirit, the best thing for THAT group would be the
pastor -- the best gift. That's right.
So it says, "covet earnestly the best gift, but" He said, "I'll
show you a more excellent way" (than coveting). And the more excellent
way than coveting anything is chapter 13, which is the love of God in
the renewed mind. And, if you walk with that love of God in the renewed
mind, you need not covet anything because; when you need the ministry of
an apostle, it'll be there; when you need the ministry of a prophet,
it'll be there; when you need the ministry of an evangelist, it'll be
there. That's right -- that's right. Why? Because of chapter 13, and
there it says, "follow after charity!"
Charity is the word agapeo. Agapeo means divine or God love.
Follow after divine or God love. Well, He gave this to me in the
spirit, so I put it on in the renewed mind. Every time you read the
word "charity," it means the love of God in the renewed mind -- living
it. Like the word phileo is natural or human love. "Philadelphia"
comes from this word. See, it's the love of God in the renewed mind in
manifestation. That's it!
I Corinthians 14:1
Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may
prophesy.
Follow after the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation,
but rather -- and desire spiritual things or spiritual matters. Here --
I've got to go back to chapter 13 and pick this up because I flipped
over to 14 on these things. But, in 13:
I Corinthians 13:1
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not
charity, [which is the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation]
I {am} become as [a] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
You see, we are to follow, as chapter 14, verse 1 says, we're to
follow after the love of God. But, before we can get to that depth,
we've got to, in detail, see what this more excellent way of walking
with the greatness of the power of God is. And that is, even "though I
speak with the tongues of men or the tongues of angels," (And every time
you speak in tongues, you're either speaking the tongues of men or the
tongues of angels. If it's the tongues of men, somebody here upon earth
could understand it. If it's the tongues of angels, you have to go a
little differently.) "but if I have not the love of God in the renewed
mind," speaking in tongues is devilish -- no! I am -- "I am become a
sounding sounding brass," nothing wrong with speaking in tongues.
Verse 2:
And though I have [Oh, it says:] the gift of prophecy, ...
Isn't that sweet? But the words "the gift" and "of" are in italics
-- scratch them out. It's the manifestation, nobody has the gift of
prophecy in this verse. It isn't talking about that, it's talking about:
Verse 2:
{And} though I have the [manifestation] {gift} of prophecy, and
understand all mysteries [because of word of wisdom], and all knowledge
[because of word of knowledge]; and though I have all faith, so that I
could remove mountains, and have not [the love of God in the renewed
mind] {charity}, I am nothing.
Verses 3-5:
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my
body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity
vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily
provoked [gets upset sometimes, but not easily], thinketh no evil;
Boy, isn't that something? Doesn't even THINK evil. See that
fella doing that? Immediately you think evil. If you've got the love
of God in the renewed mind, you don't even think that.
Verses 6-8:
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth
all things.
[The love of God in the renewed mind] {Charity} never faileth: but
whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues,
they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
Ha, ha! How they love this. They said, "Tongues ceased with the
apostles." Then I say to them, "If it did, you wouldn't know it,
because this verse says that knowledge shall vanish away. If knowledge
vanished away, how would you know tongues ceased?" That's right.
Verses 9-11:
For we know in part [With all these manifestations, we know in part],
and [when] we prophesy [we only prophesy] in part.
But when that which is perfect is come [and that's the return of
Christ -- when that which is perfect is come], then [until then,
everything else is here] that which [was] {is} in part shall be done
away.
[For] When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Verse 13:
[For] {And} now abideth faith, hope, [love] {charity}, these three; [and
inside of the church] {but} the greatest {of these} is [the love of God
in the renewed mind in manifestation] {charity} [until Christ's return].
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Well, that settles that. Thank you, Galen.
Clearly, Wierwille got those definitions 100% backwards, and it appears deliberately so (that is, it wasn't just confusing the words and definitions, but actively getting them wrong, misunderstanding their meanings and teaching the wrong thing).
He had to know that Bullinger taught the opposite definitions. I refuse to ascribe idiocy to him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
Let's see if I have got this straight -
allos - another when there are more than two involved.
heteros - another when there are only two involved.
These two definitions seem to be fairly consistent from what I have read. It appears the question lies in which one of those meanings, allos or heteros, is refering to another of the same kind or another of a different kind? I think that is where the inconsistancy lies and where the confusion is steming from?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
To answer your first comment, when Jesus says "turn the other cheek," he uses allos, which is inconsistent with Wierwille's definition, your declaration that the usages are "fairly consistent" notwithstanding (unless, of course, Jesus was counting butt cheeks too, but somehow I doubt that). In Luke 4:43, there's a reference to "other cities." Clearly, more than two are involved. But guess which word is used? That's right, heteros, the word that's only supposed to be used when only two are involved. Wrong definition for both words.
As for the rest, we've been going over that through this whole thread!
Wierwille states in the class that allos is another of a different kind, and heteros is another of the same kind. The opposite is true. Wierwille apparently wrote this in the first printing of PFAL, but it is not in subsequent printings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
I believe the expression "turn the other cheek" is a figure of speech here in the Word. If that is the case, then the definition VPW provided for allos may (or it may not) be the correct one. But there are certainly much better ways to do a word study than simply point out a scripture in which a particular Greek word appears to prove a particular point. (I'll give you an illustration of this at the end of this post.) And I think you will agree. So for further consideration, the word "allos" is translated and it appears translated in the bible as:
another - 68 times
more - 1 time
one - 4 times
other - 74 times
other man - 4 times
other things - 3 times
some - 11 times
another man's - 1 time
otherwise - 1 time
another (with tis) 1 time
Allos is also translated with a long o (allws) or short o (allos). With the long o it is translated as: otherwise once.
Heteros likewise has a long o and short o. (ws or os). With the long o it is also translated as: otherwise 1 time.
Heteros (were it is with the short o) appears translated as:
another - 42 times
else - 1 time
other - 41 times
strange - 1 time
another place - 1 time
another psalm - 1 time
next day - 2 times
other thing - 3 times
one another - 1 time
some other - 3 times
Other forms of heteros include:
Heterodidaskaleo = teach another doctrine - 1 time
Heteroglossos = of another tongue - 1 time
Heterozugeo = be unequally yoked together - 1 time.
What I found interesting to note is that heteros is translated as: "strange" and not as other or another. It appears this one time in Jude 7 - Even as Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange = heteros flesh...
Depending on your POV it would appear then that heteros could be refering to the same kind, but I am not sure if the "strange flesh" this verse is refering to is specifically refering to homosex, (it could be implying having sex with the same flesh, which would be strange) or if here it is refering to having sex with animals. That could also mean - strange flesh (which would then be of a different kind - a different flesh).
Perhaps context and usage in the Word of God defines the meanings of these terms far more than any hard and fast rules someone sets forth? I will admit a word study on these two different words certainly warrants a much closer observation than anyone here has done so far. From what I've seen, just picking out a single verse in the bible in which the word allos or heteros appears I don't believe is going to give someone specific insight on the exact definition of either one of these terms. We readily see this from the record in Jude 7 - by handling the Word of God from a simplistic cursory study of a single verse of scripture. Likewise it won't be achieved by going to any other verse in which these words appear and doing the same simplistic study - unless one chooses to do a much broader word study on these words to determine their exact meaning and definition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I disagree. The language in the figure still has to be consistent. This is a plain old ordinary every day error.
And yet, that is what VPW did. Quite often, no less.
Precisely, and that includes the hard and fast rules set forth by VPW, which would mean that he was (drumroll please) wrong about the mathematical exactness and scientific precision of the words as he defined them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
I can get with that. I'd be willing to chance it & say that it could be more accurately put this way:
God's word, in its infinite perfection, CAN, in places where God intended, be mathematically exact and scientifically precise. The more I study the Bible without the tunnel-visioned qualities of wayhead, the more I see how perfect it is in that it can be applied to a wide variety of instances, circumstances, etc. in many ways.
The "many ways" are specifically accurate in their applications, as one applys scripture in a GODLY fashion, as opposed to application in a self-serving capacity.
I remember back in 76-78 while in art school I was excited to find a group of Christians at the school. I got involved in the prayer/Bible study group. I'd go to the Bible study during the day in college and then go to a twig in the evenings, sometimes on the same day. The TWI group would highly discourage the, "what does that scripture say to you" POV that the Bible study group would equally as strongly ENcourage.
I took my first PFAL class in 76 AFTER being involved in the other study group. I was not yet committed to TWI and went to both groups as a quiet observer, not throwing in my two cents very much. It was an interesting dicotomy to me, how both groups who claimed commitment to God had such a different approach concerning His word.
Fast forwarding to today. I now believe that the whole mathematical exactness, scientific precision thing did more to usher in the Gestapo, Nazi-like legalism TWI fell prey to than any other specific doctrine. I now believe is is the perfection of God in his choice of words that allows a study like this one we see here on heteros/allos to show many (in a category, being "other) applications.
This thinking flies in the face of the "only ONE interpretation" hypothesis of VPW. IF there truly is, in fact, ONLY one "interpretation" of each and every word in God's word WHY then do we need His gift of Holy Spirit to lead us into "all the truth" of righteousness (right living)???
What is holy spirit for if not to guide us in ways that we can NOT see? What does it do if not give us a living connection to God himself? God, who is a living Father to us can certainly guide us and say, "in this situation, you apply it THIS way."
In another situation he may say apply it THAT way.
If I can say, "Tommorrow, I'm going to drive my car around the big banked curve, on my way from the river bank where I was fishing; going to the bank where I do my banking. Once there I will withraw some money to pay for my basketball lessons so I can work on my bank shot, so I can make it to the NBA where I can earn some serious bank."
Why can't God? With ANY word He chooses, whenever he chooses? Why couldn't He even teach us a NEW application of words, or principles found in his word?
Yeah, I'd agree VP WAS not only wrong to install such legalism into the ministry he was hypocritically teaching out of both sides of his mouth by teaching "freedom in Christ."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Makes sense. Got me thinking about the different quotations in the Bible- no time to look up the details at the moment, but more often than not, when God "quotes himself" the new context practically in no way resembles the old context the words used were set in.
That always kind of bothered me- since I thought everything was so black and white- that there was only one logical interpretation possible. Apparently not..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Just another thought. I remember reading the Bullinger stuff about Gnome, or quotation. Sometimes the quotations agreed closely with the Septuagint, sometimes agreed more closely with the hebrew manuscripts, sometimes neither. Rarely could you describe the quotations word for word. This troubled me.. God Almighty reading "thoroughly" instead of "throughly".
Maybe all of this word for word, verbatim philosophy is not all that it is cracked up to be- at least my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
all of these posts to find that (ta-da) vpw got it WRONG!
talk about anti-climatic.
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.