Statement: The Holy Spirit marked the important things by figures of speech.
To rephrase this into a simple A-B connective it would read:
1. If it is a figure of speech(A) then it is important (B).
The contrapositive is: If not B then not A, and would read:
2. If it is not important (B) then it is not a figure of speech (A).
Using this logic, I would say that this is unprovable. For one, importance is too subjective. Important for what and to whom?
I could easily easily find a verse which includes a figure of speech that seems trivial to me and of no real importance, that would seem to make the contrapositive false and thereby invalidate the first connective statement.
In defense, one could argue that all scripture is important. But arguing that would contradict the first A-B connective.
quote:A "Figure of speech" relates to the form in which the words are used. It consists in the fact that a word or words are used out of their ordinary sense, or place, or manner, for the purpose of attracting our attention to what is thus said. A Figure of speech is a designed and legitimate departure from the laws of language, in order to emphasise what is said. Hence in such Figures we have the Holy Spirit's own marking, so to speak, of His own words. ...Figures are never used but for the sake of emphasis.( E.W. Bullinger - The Companion Bible - Appendix 6)
Wierwille, of course, got his ideas on figures from none other than E.W Bullinger. Bullinger's opinion is that the Holy Spirit uses figures for:
1. For the purpose of attracting our attention to what is said.
2. To emphasize what is said.
Note that this is only Bullinger's opinion. While it may be true, it is not objectively provable. How do we know that God used figures for emphasis? Figures are also part of common everyday language, many are simply built in. I use them quite often - sometimes with no forethought. I do not "always" use them for emphasis or to mark what is important.
Wierwiille possibly took "emphasis" to mean "importance". Regardless of the pure logic involved, VPW saying that figures mark what is important, implies in the mind of the average Joe, that scriptures with figures have more importance than those which do not - or that the figurative part of a verse is the important part. Important as opposed to what?
In any case we probably should be dealing with Wierwille's intended meaning of that statement, rather than from a purely logical standpoint. No one can rightly accuse VPW of using good logic. I seriously doubt that Wierwille considered the contrapositive.
Goey
[This message was edited by Goey on January 22, 2003 at 16:35.]
I was busier than a one-legged man in an a$$-kicking contest working your last post, I literally put my shoulder to the oar and my nose to the grindstone in intense furrow-browed thought and......and.......and...
I had something really profound and important to say, but for the life of me, I can't recall what the heck it was....
Statement: The Holy Spirit marked the important things by figures of speech.
To rephrase this into a simple A-B connective it would read:
1. If it is a figure of speech(A) then it is important (B).
The contrapositive is: If not B then not A, and would read:
2. If it is not important (B) then it is not a figure of speech (A).
Using this logic, I would say that this is unprovable. For one, importance is too subjective. Important for what and to whom?
I could easily easily find a verse which includes a figure of speech that seems trivial to me and of no real importance, that would seem to make the contrapositive false and thereby invalidate the first connective statement.
In defense, one could argue that all scripture is important. But arguing that would contradict the first A-B connective.
Goey: Exactly. Got it in one! Gold star for the week! :)-->
As for the rest of your post, you've got a point, too. There's always a reason when emphasizing a statement. I never got the impression that Wierwille made it as black and white as figure=good, literal=bad. I never thought all his analysis of the figures was definitive, but the figures themselves do add emphasis, and therefore importance of varying degree to the verses.
[This message was edited by Zixar on January 22, 2003 at 18:18.]
I was busier than a one-legged man in an a$$-kicking contest working your last post, I literally put my shoulder to the oar and my nose to the grindstone in intense furrow-browed thought and......and.......and...
I had something really profound and important to say, but for the life of me, I can't recall what the heck it was....
No one can mix a metaphor like you can, Lar! ;)-->
quote:Anyone care to expound on Wierwille's explanation of modern Jewry in the "Jew and Judaen" chapter of Jesus Christ Our Passover?
Sure.
This appendix was an expansion of a monograph called Was Abraham a Jew? that Wierwille did in the late 50's or early 60's.
There is no doubt that a tribe or nation called the Khazars existed and little doubt that the rulers converted to Phariseeic Judaism (which effectively meant that the whole tribe or nation converted).
Arthur Koestler, in his book, The Thirteenth Tribe makes that case very well (even though it is very boring reading).
Wierwille, perhaps hoping that no one would really read Koestler, or maybe because he didn't understand The Thirteenth Tribe himself, makes several errors in Jew and Judean that wayfers have repeated without question.
All modern Jews are the descendents of Khazars.Koestler does not make this point. He posits that mostAskenazim, i.e. Jews living primarily in eastern Europe, Poland, Russia, Germany, are descended from the Khazars. The Sephardim, Jews mainly living in Palestine, Turkey, North Africa, and the Iberian peninsula, are the second main division of modern Jewry; KOestler makes no claims that these Jews are descended from the Khazars.
Yiddish is the Khazar language written in Hebrew characters, with some changes and adaptions over the years. Yiddish is a dialect of German, as are High German and Low German. It deviates from the latter two languages in that it has admixtures from Polish and Russian, as well as Hebrew. There are few words that can be traced to a Turkic tongue, as Khazarian must have been. A similar language is Ladino, spoken by many Sephardi, which is a Romance language similar to Spanish, with admixtures from Hebrew and Arabic.
The modern English word "Jew" is somehow different than the biblical word "Judean". Actually, Jew is a corruption and abbreviation of the word Judean, and in many languages the words are identical. Anyway, the Aramaic word was probably Yehudiim or something like that (no "J" sound in Hebrew or Aramaic!). "Judean" is only a rough transliteration of the Hebrew and/or Aramaic. Wierwille gives a list of English words that meant "Jew", culminating with the modern spelling.
Any descent history will show that Jews were present continuously from biblical times through the present. Believing that all modern Jews are descended from the Khazars requires one to believe that the original Jews were wiped out at some point. There is no evidence that this happened, but plenty of evidence to believe that they have survived to the present day.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
As for the rest of your post, you've got a point, too. There's always a reason when emphasizing a statement. I never got the impression that Wierwille made it as black and white as figure=good, literal=bad. I never thought all his analysis of the figures was definitive, but the figures themselves do add emphasis, and therefore importance of varying degree to the verses.
After looking at all of this last night, there's a lot of ground to cover. I want to try to do it as quickly as possible.
First off, here's the actual PFAL quote. Zix, tell me if you still feel the same way after reading it:
quote:Have you ever asked yourself what should be emphasized in the Word of God? If the Bible is God-breathed, theopneustos, and if the Bible is the Word of God, can you imagine for one minute that God would allow any mortal the privilege of deciding what should be emphasized in the Word of God? In this word, "God-breathed," theopneustos, is a great truth that has taken years to ferret out and study.
...
The figures of speech in the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 are God's markings in The Word as to that which He wants emphasized.
Yeah, Doc, it took years for SOMEONE ELSE to ferret out and study. You just copied it.
Anyway, Wierwille himself employs a figure of speech here, doesn't he? Yes, it's called "FullofitamI."
Or to state it in more delicate terms: If God will not allow any mortal the privilege of deciding what should be emphasized in His Word, and the ONLY way God marked His emphases is by employing figures of speech, does it not follow logically that God doesn't want something emphasized if He did not employ a figure of speech?
Notice that Wierwille does NOT say "figures of speech are ONE OF God's markings..." He says the ARE God's markings and never, in any other part of his writing, does Wierwille ever list anything else.
I should note two things: Wierwille does not use the term "that which is important." That was my faulty memory. With the actual quote in front of us, I still stand by my categorization of this as, at the very least, an error of interpretation.
Secondly, the figure of speech "FullofitamI" is a corruption of a stolen joke. I'd love to take credit for it, but that would be plagiarism.
So I stand by my original comment.
Oakspear: NICE JOB! I knew that chapter would be a gold mine of actual errors, and you proved me right. Well done.
quote:Or to state it in more delicate terms: If God will not allow any mortal the privilege of deciding what should be emphasized in His Word, and the ONLY way God marked His emphases is by employing figures of speech, does it not follow logically that God doesn't want something emphasized if He did not employ a figure of speech?
As proof, you quote Wierwille as saying:
quote:Have you ever asked yourself what should be emphasized in the Word of God? If the Bible is God-breathed, theopneustos, and if the Bible is the Word of God, can you imagine for one minute that God would allow any mortal the privilege of deciding what should be emphasized in the Word of God? In this word, "God-breathed," theopneustos, is a great truth that has taken years to ferret out and study.
...
The figures of speech in the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 are God's markings in The Word as to that which He wants emphasized.
Now, which man used the word "only", and which did not? If we add a word, do we still have the "Word of Wierwille"? :)--> The word "are" is not all-encompassing as you imply. By that logic, if Wierwille had once said "Oranges are fruit", and never listed another fruit anywhere, he meant that "all fruit are oranges."
At least you see that it is an "interpretational error" now and not an "actual" one, which was what I was trying to say all along.
Now don't get picky. get it? Fruit? Orange? Picky?
Actually, you said this was neither interpretational NOR actual.
As for my justification for "only," it's a literal interpretation according to usage, a perfectly valid construct that Wierwille himself used all the time.
Based on the fact that no mortal has the right to decide for himself what needs to be emphasized, and the fact that God marked that which he wanted emphasized by using figures of speech, and that in the seminal book on the subject of how to understand God's Word, NO OTHER MEANS of discerning emphasis is provided, I think "only" is a perfectly valid word. To add another method of discerning that which deserves emphasis in God's Word would require me to claim immortality, as no mortal would DARE take such a matter upon himself.
Rafael: Forgive me for being unclear. When I said "interpretational error" in my last post, I wasn't referring to a misinterpretation made by Wierwille...
VPW taught that figures are God's way of telling us what HE wants it to be emphasied. VPW did not teach any other way that God might emphasize something in the Bible. It is safe to assume that VPW meant that if God wants it emphasized, He (God) will use a figure, and that humans are not allowed to decide what it to be emphazized.
So then according to Wierwille, If God did not use a figure there is to be no added emphasis. To do so would be human interference in deciding what is to be emphasized, which according to Wierwille , God does not allow.
So according to Wierwille, if I were to take a verse of scripture which has no figure employed and emphasize it in some way, then I would be outside of God's will and what He allows. - That is rediculously absurd.
To me this clearly makes VPW's take on figures an actual error.
Goey
[This message was edited by Goey on January 23, 2003 at 10:11.]
A quibble on the definition of "emphasis," coming from the man who told us that having one preposition out of place will crush your Bible into a million itty bitty little pieces.
I call that fair game.
The problem, Zix, is that Wierwille makes a logical leap based on the information you provided, and you're not allowing us to call him on that leap.
In point c, you remark that figurative language connotes emphasis by definition. While that is true, it only connotes emphasis using the literal statement as a base. It does not make reference, as Wierwille does, to other statements not covered by the figure.
Hey, you started it.
In other words, God may have been emphasizing the original points by using figures, but the emphasis was only in relation to the statement God would have had to make literally. It is NOT in relation to the rest of the Word.
Example:
Jesus could have said, "When you eat this bread, I want you to think of me. And when you drink this wine, I want you to remember my sacrifice."
But to really drive the point home, he said "Take, eat, this is my body. Take, drink, this is my blood."
The second way is an emphasis over the first way, but in no way is that statement an emphasis over "He is not here, for he is risen." That last statement contains no figure of speech, but it FAR surpasses the communion statement in terms of what God wants emphasized in His Word. There's nothing in the Bible that says an understanding of communion is required for salvation, but an understanding of the resurrection is required.
Which does God emphasize in His Word? Well, according to Wierwille, mere mortals don't have the right to claim the resurrection is emphasized above communion, especially since a figure of speech is employed in describing communion, but no figure is employed in describing the resurrection.
What you call "a quibble," Wierwille uses to prop himself up as some great one. Who else has taught you figures of speech, he asks, conveniently neglecting to cite the Trinitarian Bullinger as his source of that information.
I have to ask again: does Wierwille mention Bullinger's book on figures of speech in the videotaped class? I know I heard about it when I took the class, but I do not remember if it was on the tape or if the coordinator tried to sell it.
The second way is an emphasis over the first way, but in no way is that statement an emphasis over "He is not here, for he is risen." That last statement contains no figure of speech, but it FAR surpasses the communion statement in terms of what God wants emphasized in His Word.
Not to be flip, but the appropriate reply here really is "sez you!"
You claim that one verse is more important than the other, regardless of emphasis. If you get to judge what's more important than what, you're no better than Wierwille.
And, since you're obviously better than he, your argument fails once again. :D-->
Hey Raf. Is it the PFAL videotapes you're thinking of? He does mention it along the lines of "regarding figures of speech, the person who's done the most work on it that (he) knows of is E.W. Bullinger". It's a brief statement.
EW was definitely the 900 lb gorilla on figures of speech. I've got some of his stuff. "How to Enjoy the Bible" is a nice piece of work, has a great deal of the same material in PFAL, presented differently.
Here's what he says, parts of, in his intro to Figures of Speech, if this is of any interest:
------------
In fact, it is not too much to say that, in the use of these figures, we have, as it were, the Holy Spirit's own markings of our Bibles.
This is the most important point of all. For it is not by fleshly wisdom that the "words which the Holy Ghost teacheth" are to be understood. The natural man cannot understand the Word of God. It is foolishness unto him. A man may admire a sun-dial, he may marvel at its use, and appreciate the cleverness of its design; he may be interested in its carved-work, or wonder at the mosaics or other beauties which adorn its structure: but, if he holds a lamp in his hand or any other light emanating from himself or from this world, he can make it any hour he pleases, and he will never be able to tell the time of day. Nothing but the light from God's sun in the Heavens can tell him that. So it is with the Word of God. The natural man may admire its structure, or be interested in its statements; he may study its geography, its history, yea, even its prophecy; but none of these things will reveal to him his relation to time and eternity. Nothing but the light that cometh from Heaven. Nothing but the Sun of Righteousness can tell him that. It may be said of the Bible, therefore, as it is of the New Jerusalem -- "The Lamb is the light thereof." The Holy Spirit's work in this world is to lead to Christ, to glorify Christ. The Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit; and the same Spirit that inspired the words in the Book must inspire its truths in our hearts, for they can and must be " Spiritually discerned " (I Cor. 2:1-16).
On this foundation, then, we have prosecuted this work. And on these lines we have sought to carry it out.
--------------------------
Kind of long, but pretty nifty. He does say he considered them "holy spirit's own markings".
Still and all, he strongly suggests a two-fold learning curve-biblical study and the inspiration of Holy Spirit to open it's truths to us. The end result is to lead to Christ. Knowledge without the corresponding understanding is incomplete. So, his approach seemed to recognize that just knowing the figures of speech wasn't enough. That may be why he words it the way he does..."not too much to say"...."we have, as it were"....
It also seems that if a person were to study the bible, research it say, than as their understanding was opened to it's truth, they would be led to Christ, in an ongoing process. In other words, it keeps taking you back to Him. It may not be too much to say then, that if we find it taking us anywhere else we have a DEFinite marking of the Holy Spirit telling us that we're heading in the wrong direction. As it were. :)-->
Wait a minute, I thought God emphasized things in his words by using italics.
Oakspear
You mean like this?
-> this is important
:D-->
Actually, it's the colored drawings in the older King James bibles that sets what's ROCKIN'..."Moses Receives the Tables"..."Jesus turns the water in to wine"...
a)If the Bible is God's Word, then God originated whatever was written down. (theopneustos)
b) Given "a", then any figures of speech that exist in the Bible were meant to be there by the Author.
c) Since figurative language connotes emphasis by definition, any figures in the Bible give emphasis to their content as well.
d) Therefore, given "b" and "c", then God most certainly was aware that by using figures of speech, He was giving emphasis in those instances.
If there is nothing wrong with that logical process, then this whole thing boils down to a quibble on the definition of "emphasis".
Not really.
In my last post I was talking about VPW's take on figures, not just whether or not God himself intended/knew that figures were used. It is partly a quibble over the definition of emphasis, but more than that it is the error in VPW's logic and exposition of the subject.
But, assuming that you logic above is not flawed and the givens are indeed true, how do you logically explain VPW's following statement?
"...can you imagine for one minute that God would allow any mortal the privilege of deciding what should be emphasized in the Word of God"
The question is rhetorical and for VPW the answer was obviously "no".
That statement in the context of figures of speech implies that *only* God decides what it to be emphasized, and VPW's lack of any other teaching about emphasis, implies that it is *only* by figures of speech that God makes emphasis in his Word. If it is *only* by figures that emphasis is made, then it follows that where there is no figure, there is no emphasis. It also follows, that if a mortal emphasizes a precept or truth that God did not give by way of a figure, he is doing something that God has forbidden.
(I know that this is repetetive, bit you seemed to gloss over this post of my previoius post.)
Do figures of speech emphasize things in the Bible - Yes
Did God choose to use figures - Yes
Did God forbid mortals "the privilege of deciding what should be emphasized in the Word of God? " - No
Is it *only* by figures of speech that there is any "emphasis" in the Word? You answer.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
208
62
95
53
Popular Days
Jan 3
56
Jan 28
53
Jan 17
52
Jan 27
46
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 208 posts
Jbarrax 62 posts
Zixar 95 posts
Mike 53 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2003
56 posts
Jan 28 2003
53 posts
Jan 17 2003
52 posts
Jan 27 2003
46 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Clear as the difference between all with a distinction and all without distinction. See, to those unaware of the circumstances that brought about this thread, I look like I'm nitpicking to prove Wier
Raf
I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether
Larry P2
And let's not forget the one about "All the women in the Kingdom belong to the King." Which proves that he was a lecherous piece of sh!t communicating his desire for a steady stream of young, gullibl
Raf
To be a little more clear:
My argument is that what you've called "The Inverse" is actually a part of what Wierwille is saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Statement: The Holy Spirit marked the important things by figures of speech.
To rephrase this into a simple A-B connective it would read:
1. If it is a figure of speech(A) then it is important (B).
The contrapositive is: If not B then not A, and would read:
2. If it is not important (B) then it is not a figure of speech (A).
Using this logic, I would say that this is unprovable. For one, importance is too subjective. Important for what and to whom?
I could easily easily find a verse which includes a figure of speech that seems trivial to me and of no real importance, that would seem to make the contrapositive false and thereby invalidate the first connective statement.
In defense, one could argue that all scripture is important. But arguing that would contradict the first A-B connective.
Wierwille, of course, got his ideas on figures from none other than E.W Bullinger. Bullinger's opinion is that the Holy Spirit uses figures for:
1. For the purpose of attracting our attention to what is said.
2. To emphasize what is said.
Note that this is only Bullinger's opinion. While it may be true, it is not objectively provable. How do we know that God used figures for emphasis? Figures are also part of common everyday language, many are simply built in. I use them quite often - sometimes with no forethought. I do not "always" use them for emphasis or to mark what is important.
Wierwiille possibly took "emphasis" to mean "importance". Regardless of the pure logic involved, VPW saying that figures mark what is important, implies in the mind of the average Joe, that scriptures with figures have more importance than those which do not - or that the figurative part of a verse is the important part. Important as opposed to what?
In any case we probably should be dealing with Wierwille's intended meaning of that statement, rather than from a purely logical standpoint. No one can rightly accuse VPW of using good logic. I seriously doubt that Wierwille considered the contrapositive.
Goey
[This message was edited by Goey on January 22, 2003 at 16:35.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry P2
Goey,
I was busier than a one-legged man in an a$$-kicking contest working your last post, I literally put my shoulder to the oar and my nose to the grindstone in intense furrow-browed thought and......and.......and...
I had something really profound and important to say, but for the life of me, I can't recall what the heck it was....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Larry,
Ouch !
Larry, I'll work the figures in your post to see what is really important.
Goey
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Goey: Exactly. Got it in one! Gold star for the week!
:)-->
As for the rest of your post, you've got a point, too. There's always a reason when emphasizing a statement. I never got the impression that Wierwille made it as black and white as figure=good, literal=bad. I never thought all his analysis of the figures was definitive, but the figures themselves do add emphasis, and therefore importance of varying degree to the verses.
[This message was edited by Zixar on January 22, 2003 at 18:18.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
No one can mix a metaphor like you can, Lar!
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Rafael: I thought you were in on the discussion we had on another thread about inverses, converses, and contrapositives. Maybe not.
You're no fun any more!
:D-->
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
This appendix was an expansion of a monograph called Was Abraham a Jew? that Wierwille did in the late 50's or early 60's.
There is no doubt that a tribe or nation called the Khazars existed and little doubt that the rulers converted to Phariseeic Judaism (which effectively meant that the whole tribe or nation converted).
Arthur Koestler, in his book, The Thirteenth Tribe makes that case very well (even though it is very boring reading).
Wierwille, perhaps hoping that no one would really read Koestler, or maybe because he didn't understand The Thirteenth Tribe himself, makes several errors in Jew and Judean that wayfers have repeated without question.
Any descent history will show that Jews were present continuously from biblical times through the present. Believing that all modern Jews are descended from the Khazars requires one to believe that the original Jews were wiped out at some point. There is no evidence that this happened, but plenty of evidence to believe that they have survived to the present day.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
After looking at all of this last night, there's a lot of ground to cover. I want to try to do it as quickly as possible.
First off, here's the actual PFAL quote. Zix, tell me if you still feel the same way after reading it:
Yeah, Doc, it took years for SOMEONE ELSE to ferret out and study. You just copied it.
Anyway, Wierwille himself employs a figure of speech here, doesn't he? Yes, it's called "FullofitamI."
Or to state it in more delicate terms: If God will not allow any mortal the privilege of deciding what should be emphasized in His Word, and the ONLY way God marked His emphases is by employing figures of speech, does it not follow logically that God doesn't want something emphasized if He did not employ a figure of speech?
Notice that Wierwille does NOT say "figures of speech are ONE OF God's markings..." He says the ARE God's markings and never, in any other part of his writing, does Wierwille ever list anything else.
I should note two things: Wierwille does not use the term "that which is important." That was my faulty memory. With the actual quote in front of us, I still stand by my categorization of this as, at the very least, an error of interpretation.
Secondly, the figure of speech "FullofitamI" is a corruption of a stolen joke. I'd love to take credit for it, but that would be plagiarism.
So I stand by my original comment.
Oakspear: NICE JOB! I knew that chapter would be a gold mine of actual errors, and you proved me right. Well done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Rafael: You said:
As proof, you quote Wierwille as saying:
Now, which man used the word "only", and which did not? If we add a word, do we still have the "Word of Wierwille"?
:)--> The word "are" is not all-encompassing as you imply. By that logic, if Wierwille had once said "Oranges are fruit", and never listed another fruit anywhere, he meant that "all fruit are oranges."
At least you see that it is an "interpretational error" now and not an "actual" one, which was what I was trying to say all along.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Now don't get picky. get it? Fruit? Orange? Picky?
Actually, you said this was neither interpretational NOR actual.
As for my justification for "only," it's a literal interpretation according to usage, a perfectly valid construct that Wierwille himself used all the time.
Based on the fact that no mortal has the right to decide for himself what needs to be emphasized, and the fact that God marked that which he wanted emphasized by using figures of speech, and that in the seminal book on the subject of how to understand God's Word, NO OTHER MEANS of discerning emphasis is provided, I think "only" is a perfectly valid word. To add another method of discerning that which deserves emphasis in God's Word would require me to claim immortality, as no mortal would DARE take such a matter upon himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Rafael: Forgive me for being unclear. When I said "interpretational error" in my last post, I wasn't referring to a misinterpretation made by Wierwille...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
why i outta...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Zix,
Rafael makes a good case.
VPW taught that figures are God's way of telling us what HE wants it to be emphasied. VPW did not teach any other way that God might emphasize something in the Bible. It is safe to assume that VPW meant that if God wants it emphasized, He (God) will use a figure, and that humans are not allowed to decide what it to be emphazized.
So then according to Wierwille, If God did not use a figure there is to be no added emphasis. To do so would be human interference in deciding what is to be emphasized, which according to Wierwille , God does not allow.
So according to Wierwille, if I were to take a verse of scripture which has no figure employed and emphasize it in some way, then I would be outside of God's will and what He allows. - That is rediculously absurd.
To me this clearly makes VPW's take on figures an actual error.
Goey
[This message was edited by Goey on January 23, 2003 at 10:11.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Goey: The problem is that,
a)If the Bible is God's Word, then God originated whatever was written down. (theopneustos)
b) Given "a", then any figures of speech that exist in the Bible were meant to be there by the Author.
c) Since figurative language connotes emphasis by definition, any figures in the Bible give emphasis to their content as well.
d) Therefore, given "b" and "c", then God most certainly was aware that by using figures of speech, He was giving emphasis in those instances.
If there is nothing wrong with that logical process, then this whole thing boils down to a quibble on the definition of "emphasis".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
A quibble on the definition of "emphasis," coming from the man who told us that having one preposition out of place will crush your Bible into a million itty bitty little pieces.
I call that fair game.
The problem, Zix, is that Wierwille makes a logical leap based on the information you provided, and you're not allowing us to call him on that leap.
In point c, you remark that figurative language connotes emphasis by definition. While that is true, it only connotes emphasis using the literal statement as a base. It does not make reference, as Wierwille does, to other statements not covered by the figure.
Hey, you started it.
In other words, God may have been emphasizing the original points by using figures, but the emphasis was only in relation to the statement God would have had to make literally. It is NOT in relation to the rest of the Word.
Example:
Jesus could have said, "When you eat this bread, I want you to think of me. And when you drink this wine, I want you to remember my sacrifice."
But to really drive the point home, he said "Take, eat, this is my body. Take, drink, this is my blood."
The second way is an emphasis over the first way, but in no way is that statement an emphasis over "He is not here, for he is risen." That last statement contains no figure of speech, but it FAR surpasses the communion statement in terms of what God wants emphasized in His Word. There's nothing in the Bible that says an understanding of communion is required for salvation, but an understanding of the resurrection is required.
Which does God emphasize in His Word? Well, according to Wierwille, mere mortals don't have the right to claim the resurrection is emphasized above communion, especially since a figure of speech is employed in describing communion, but no figure is employed in describing the resurrection.
What you call "a quibble," Wierwille uses to prop himself up as some great one. Who else has taught you figures of speech, he asks, conveniently neglecting to cite the Trinitarian Bullinger as his source of that information.
I have to ask again: does Wierwille mention Bullinger's book on figures of speech in the videotaped class? I know I heard about it when I took the class, but I do not remember if it was on the tape or if the coordinator tried to sell it.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Not to be flip, but the appropriate reply here really is "sez you!"
You claim that one verse is more important than the other, regardless of emphasis. If you get to judge what's more important than what, you're no better than Wierwille.
And, since you're obviously better than he, your argument fails once again.
:D-->
Sez me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm deleting these messages because, DUH, I missed Zix's joke.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 23, 2003 at 14:14.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Very funny, young man.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 23, 2003 at 14:14.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Hey Raf. Is it the PFAL videotapes you're thinking of? He does mention it along the lines of "regarding figures of speech, the person who's done the most work on it that (he) knows of is E.W. Bullinger". It's a brief statement.
EW was definitely the 900 lb gorilla on figures of speech. I've got some of his stuff. "How to Enjoy the Bible" is a nice piece of work, has a great deal of the same material in PFAL, presented differently.
Here's what he says, parts of, in his intro to Figures of Speech, if this is of any interest:
------------
In fact, it is not too much to say that, in the use of these figures, we have, as it were, the Holy Spirit's own markings of our Bibles.
This is the most important point of all. For it is not by fleshly wisdom that the "words which the Holy Ghost teacheth" are to be understood. The natural man cannot understand the Word of God. It is foolishness unto him. A man may admire a sun-dial, he may marvel at its use, and appreciate the cleverness of its design; he may be interested in its carved-work, or wonder at the mosaics or other beauties which adorn its structure: but, if he holds a lamp in his hand or any other light emanating from himself or from this world, he can make it any hour he pleases, and he will never be able to tell the time of day. Nothing but the light from God's sun in the Heavens can tell him that. So it is with the Word of God. The natural man may admire its structure, or be interested in its statements; he may study its geography, its history, yea, even its prophecy; but none of these things will reveal to him his relation to time and eternity. Nothing but the light that cometh from Heaven. Nothing but the Sun of Righteousness can tell him that. It may be said of the Bible, therefore, as it is of the New Jerusalem -- "The Lamb is the light thereof." The Holy Spirit's work in this world is to lead to Christ, to glorify Christ. The Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit; and the same Spirit that inspired the words in the Book must inspire its truths in our hearts, for they can and must be " Spiritually discerned " (I Cor. 2:1-16).
On this foundation, then, we have prosecuted this work. And on these lines we have sought to carry it out.
--------------------------
Kind of long, but pretty nifty. He does say he considered them "holy spirit's own markings".
Still and all, he strongly suggests a two-fold learning curve-biblical study and the inspiration of Holy Spirit to open it's truths to us. The end result is to lead to Christ. Knowledge without the corresponding understanding is incomplete. So, his approach seemed to recognize that just knowing the figures of speech wasn't enough. That may be why he words it the way he does..."not too much to say"...."we have, as it were"....
It also seems that if a person were to study the bible, research it say, than as their understanding was opened to it's truth, they would be led to Christ, in an ongoing process. In other words, it keeps taking you back to Him. It may not be too much to say then, that if we find it taking us anywhere else we have a DEFinite marking of the Holy Spirit telling us that we're heading in the wrong direction. As it were.
:)-->
-----------------------------
quack
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Wait a minute, I thought God emphasized things in his words by using italics.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
You mean like this?
-> this is important
Actually, it's the colored drawings in the older King James bibles that sets what's ROCKIN'..."Moses Receives the Tables"..."Jesus turns the water in to wine"...
-----------------------------
quack
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Zix,
Not really.
In my last post I was talking about VPW's take on figures, not just whether or not God himself intended/knew that figures were used. It is partly a quibble over the definition of emphasis, but more than that it is the error in VPW's logic and exposition of the subject.
BTW, © above is debatable. I have looked at definitions from some unversities and none (so far) use the term "emphasis" in regards to figures of speech. It seems that this may be a somewhat narrow definiton.
But, assuming that you logic above is not flawed and the givens are indeed true, how do you logically explain VPW's following statement?
"...can you imagine for one minute that God would allow any mortal the privilege of deciding what should be emphasized in the Word of God"
The question is rhetorical and for VPW the answer was obviously "no".
That statement in the context of figures of speech implies that *only* God decides what it to be emphasized, and VPW's lack of any other teaching about emphasis, implies that it is *only* by figures of speech that God makes emphasis in his Word. If it is *only* by figures that emphasis is made, then it follows that where there is no figure, there is no emphasis. It also follows, that if a mortal emphasizes a precept or truth that God did not give by way of a figure, he is doing something that God has forbidden.
(I know that this is repetetive, bit you seemed to gloss over this post of my previoius post.)
Do figures of speech emphasize things in the Bible - Yes
Did God choose to use figures - Yes
Did God forbid mortals "the privilege of deciding what should be emphasized in the Word of God? " - No
Is it *only* by figures of speech that there is any "emphasis" in the Word? You answer.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Me answer? No, me Zixar.
;)-->
Okay, kidding aside, the answer is no. I never claimed otherwise.
You and Rafael both claim that VPW implies that figures are the only markings, because he never says anything else about any other.
You guys sure about that "never" stuff? Seems he implies something else is important, too, and right in the Foundational Class...
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.