Well I cannot possibly see how a loving and compassionate God would pick someone to be his representative who would so visciously hurt and destroy so many of the very people that God intended to reach.
If this were the case....It would seem to clearly indicate that he didn`t give a damn about a lot of folks.
Kenyon is NOT very respected in mainstream Christian circles, Oldiesman. Bullinger is a bit more respected. Stiles isn't even on the radar.
On the other hand, I wouldn't say Wierwille "stole" the idea of 7 administrations from Bullinger. If you accept dispensationalism and adopt the belief, then you adopt the belief. It's not stealing.
A good chunk of the chapter on The Counsel of the Lord was stolen from Bullinger, in that it was word for word taken from Bullinger's writing without credit. But that's different from dispensationalism.
Oldiesman saw that, fixated on the sentence
quote:
If you accept dispensationalism and adopt the belief, then you adopt the
belief. It's not stealing.
Ignored
quote:
A good chunk of the chapter on The Counsel of the Lord was
stolen from Bullinger, in that it was word for word taken from Bullinger's
writing without credit. But that's different from dispensationalism.
and tried to use it to claim vpw didn't plagiarize most of his stuff.
Oldiesman:
quote:
Interesting! Raf, this is what I thought about most of vp's writings,
he adopted the belief of those who he learned from.
No, he took some writings word for word without credit,
like The Counsel of the Lord.
THAT's plagiarism.
quote:
But then there are those who advance the theory that if one writes about
the same ideas as the one one learns from, but not giving the proper written
acknowledgement along with it, it's called plagiarism.
Failure to cite may well get you thrown out of a college. It WILL make you
ineligible for a Masters or Doctorate. Depending on the specifics, it can be
plagiarism. We've discussed this for weeks and weeks.
quote:
So would it be fair for me to believe that actual plagiarism is a
word for word lifting, rather than the written acknowledgement or adaptation
of beliefs?
Adaptation and written acknowledgement are two VERY different things.
Someone intellectually honest should try to keep them separate.
"Adaptation" may in effect be a word for word stealing, with a few words moved
around. vpw's plagiarism in RTHST 1st edition was word for word stealing.
He moved a few words around in later editions. This did not magically make it
"no longer plagiarism".
Further, the places he wrote where he failed to acknowledge-in introduction,
footnoting, etc. like the White and Orange Books-where he claimed they were
all him in print-
those are plagiarism because he claimed it was him.
We've discussed this before.
This is not difficult to understand.
If you didn't have a fixation with NOT seeing this, you'd have understood it
I do not believe in the Trinity. If I were to write about the subject, would I, of necessity, need to write about Wierwille or about my experience as a JW? Not necessarily, no more than I would have to credit someone if I were to say "Salvation comes by faith in Jesus Christ, according to Billy Graham."
Oldiesman, what Wierwille did was plagiarism. Not EVERYTHING he wrote was plagiarized. But PLENTY of what he wrote was plagiarized. There's a difference. You and I both know he plagiarized (not "adopted the beliefs of") Kenyon, Bullinger, Stiles, and BG Leonard. Those four are so easily documented that you're in simple denial if you don't acknowledge it (even if you feel the plagiarism was justified by God's instruction, you're admitting it was plagiarism; you're just not admitting there's anything wrong with it).
And OJ did it. His acquittal is interesting to look at, though, isn't it. I could talk to the OJ jurors and argue with them until I'm blue in the face. But OJ did it.
... that I[ came up with the idea independently, or that God said that he'd teach me all about papal infallibility, as long as I would teach others, complete with snow on the gas pumps!
I don't think VP ever said that he came up with the idea independently.
I know-even when looking right at the exact quotes, you'll read them differently.
The rest of us can READ, however.
As I've done before, I'll REpost the relevant quotes...
============
This is the ENTIRE preface to the White Book, RTHST, Receiving the Holy Spirit Today...
quote:
When I was serving my first congregation, A Korean missionary
asked me, 'Why don't you search for the greatest of all things in life which
would teach Christian believers the HOW of a really victorious life?' This challenge
was the beginning of a search which led me through many, many hours of examining
different English translations, the various critical Greek texts, and Aramaic
"originals", looking for the source of the power which was manifested in the early
Church.
Finally I realized that the experience referred to as "receiving the holy spirit"
in the Scriptures WAS and IS actually available to every born-again believer today.
I believed to receive the gift of holy spirit and I, too, manifested.
Ever since receiving into manifestation the holy spirit, I have had the desire to
put in written form the longing and fears that were mine regarding the receiving
thereof. I believe that sharing my quest with the believers who are today seeking
to be endued with power from on high may be instrumental in leading them to the
answer of their hearts' desires.
I knew from the Bible that what God sent at Pentecost was still available.
It had to be, for God does not change. I knew that the receiving of the power from
oh high on the day of Pentecost had meant increased ability for the apostles and
disciples years ago, and that I needed and wanted the same blessing. I knew that
if the Church ever needed the holy spirit in manifestation it needed it now.
Throughout my academic training in a college, a university, four seminaries,
from the commentaries I studies, and from my years of questing and research among
the various religious groups claiming adherence to the holy spirit's availability,
there appeared many things contradictory to the accuracy of the recorded Word of God.
I knew their teachings were sincere, but sincerity is no guarantee for truth.
The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all I had heard and thought
out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook.
I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for, the Word of God being the
will of God, the Scripture must fit like a hand in a glove.
If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book.
Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to
receive God's best. If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this
life, you may find your answer while reading this book. It is my prayer that you may
be edified, exhorted and comforted.
For those searching the Scriptures, desiring to know the reasons why, how, what or
where, I suggest you do a careful study of the introductions as well as the appendices
in this volume. For those who simply desire to receive, read chapters 1 through 5 and
enjoy God's great presence and power.
II Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that neededeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.
To his helpers and colleagues every writer owes a profound debt.
This seventh edition has been read and studied carefully by men and women
of Biblical and spiritual ability. To all of these I am most grateful.
The truth of the matter is that the contents of JE Stiles "Gifts of the Holy Spirit",
and content by Bullinger and Stiles form the ENTIRE contents of RTHST.
You SHOULD know that-you own a copy of Stiles' book!
That's COMPLETELY the opposite of what he said here.
None of their names appeared here.
He said he used "the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook".
The truth of the matter is that the early editions of the book used
Stiles' book as his handbook, guidebook, and contents.
quote:
He said numerous times (and wrote) that he learned from various men of God, scattered across the continent.
As we've mentioned lots of times, offhand comments here and there that
"I learned a bunch of stuff from some guys" does not constitute proper
attribution. If the holders of the copyrights had taken it to court, the suggestion
that it WOULD would produce gales of laughter in the courtroom. The credit
needs to be in the SAME book that's ripping off the material.
Take down your copy of "Babylon:Mystery Religion". Thumb thru it.
See, THAT's properly attributed. Furthermore, ALL of that book was taken from ONE
book-Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons". How many people do you know decided not to
trust Woodrow's book based on that? Correct: none.
(Neither do I-and I HAVE Hislop's book.)
Furthermore, what does "scattered across the continent" mean?
These men were in one building, and a Kansas tornado landed on it, dropping Leonard
in Canada, and Stiles, Kenyon, Bullinger across the US?
quote:
As far as him saying that God would teach him the Word as it hadn't been known since the first century if he would teach others:
It's no longer a shock that you're actually supporting that claim, but I still feel
the need to point out it's been thoroughly (and throughly) discredited.
Naturally, you're unaware of this, even after reading the posts.
quote:
God teaching him the Word doesn't have to be direct revelation without human contact.
Yes it does. If he could learn something from someone-that person KNOWS what they're
teaching. Imagine taking a Physics class where the professor doesn't know Physics.
Ridiculous-the professor must know before he can teach.
So, if he learned from someone else, that person knew before teaching vpw,
which means at least one person knew, which means that it wasn't
unknown since the first century.
A dollar says I have to make this same point to Oldies before the end of 2005 again.
quote:
His statement could also mean that God taught him the Word, thru men of God, scattered across the continent, along with his own study and reasoning ability.
Then it would have been known since the first century.
No problem-if he wasn't busy putting forth that himself was some great one,
... that I[ came up with the idea independently, or that God said that he'd teach me all about papal infallibility, as long as I would teach others, complete with snow on the gas pumps!
I don't think VP ever said that he came up with the idea independently.
He said numerous times (and wrote) that he learned from various men of God, scattered across the continent.
As far as him saying that God would teach him the Word as it hadn't been known since the first century if he would teach others:
God teaching him the Word doesn't have to be direct revelation without human contact.
His statement could also mean that God taught him the Word, thru men of God, scattered across the continent, along with his own study and reasoning ability.
You're right, he did say that he learned from other men, but he also claimd that HE put it all together - RHST, for example, was put together already by Stiles. He claimed repeatedly that those that he "learned from" were missing it in one area or another - Leonard, for instance, supposedly taught about his experiences, but Wierwille "put it all togther from The Word" - yet large amounts of PFAL were lifted directly, with minimal changes, from Leonard's class.
I'm not talking about whether or not the teachings had any worth, just that they were plagiarized, i.e. STOLEN from the people that he supposedly learned from.
Bullinger may not have been a cultist, but he certainly was on the fringe of mainstream Christian scholarship in England.
The most important Biblical work going on in Great Britain in the second half of the 19th century was the revision of the King James Version. Committees were formed to go over each section of the KJV with a fine-toothed comb, and to compare it to the critical Greek texts that were in extant. Some of the compilers of those texts were invited onto those committees. Committee members included everything from Roman Catholic scholars to a Unitarian. They consulted with a commitee in the United States, as well.
Bullinger's name appears nowhere in this project as far as I could see.
First off, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with him. I'm saying that he's not terribly respected in mainstream Christianity. The big reason for this is that he's considered the founder of the "word-faith" movement, something TWI is very much a part of. Anyone who teaches "law of believing" type doctrine is a part of that movement. In addition to Wierwille, who plagiarized Kenyon, this includes Kenneth Hagin, who plagiarized Kenyon, and Kenneth Copeland, who plagiarized Kenyon.
Essek William Kenyon, whose life and ministry were enormously impacted by such cults as Science of Mind, the Unity School of Christianity, Christian Science, and New Thought metaphysics,23 is the true father of the modern-day Faith movement. Many of the phrases popularized by present-day prosperity preachers, such as "What I confess, I possess..."
Sound familiar? "Confession of believe yields receipt of confession" anyone? Believing equals receiving?
The most important Biblical work going on in Great Britain in the second half of the 19th century was the revision of the King James Version...They consulted with a commitee in the United States, as well.
And the result was the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version
Reading Kenyon(and DAKE) is what set me on a course to leave the Way Ministry.
I still need a lot more time to digest and think about things concerning doctrine. I know there are a lot of errors, (Raf- read your stuff, even hubby agreed with most of it.)
There is just too much stuff to redo, rethink, check, etc....who to believe? I would love to sit and research the Word all day, but it is just not possible.
Am I back to my own "opinion" on everything?
At some point I'll do a doctrinal thread for this.
Bullinger mentions differences between the KJV and the ERV in his Companion Bible, if I recall. And a lot of Wayfers got into reading that version for awhile.
I would count George Lamsa among the strange people VPW sought for doctrinal info. I was surprised to find his Bible and commentaries still in print and available in occult bookstores. Does anyone know why that is?
Thanks, Dove. I've been in a few Christian book stores in my time, rarely saw Lamsa there. In your opinion, do his works make the catalogue because there is a consensus that his stuff is good, or affordable, or just plain marketable? (Or perhaps the people with his copyright are just vocal?)
Lamsa's is the only Bible I know of to say "for this purpose was I spared," and his commentaries are not particularly scholarly, just long tomes that say "this means that." Reminded me of TWI -- I'm not gonna explain the verse to you, just scratch it out and write in what I tell ya!
Bliss, it's not necessary to research all the questions. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead you into all the truth. Don't worry about using research materials or reference books. Simply read it prayerfully, slowly, asking the Lord what He wants you to know about what you're reading this time. He has a personal curriculum with your name on it. I'll dare say he probably won't be teaching you an integrated theology that causes things to fit from cover to cover.
As time goes on I trust my knowledge of the Bible less but my Lord more.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
7
16
15
Popular Days
Sep 20
33
Sep 22
18
Dec 19
13
Sep 21
10
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 12 posts
TheEvan 7 posts
WordWolf 16 posts
Ham 15 posts
Popular Days
Sep 20 2005
33 posts
Sep 22 2005
18 posts
Dec 19 2006
13 posts
Sep 21 2005
10 posts
rascal
Well I cannot possibly see how a loving and compassionate God would pick someone to be his representative who would so visciously hurt and destroy so many of the very people that God intended to reach.
If this were the case....It would seem to clearly indicate that he didn`t give a damn about a lot of folks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Raf said
Oldiesman saw that, fixated on the sentence
Ignored
and tried to use it to claim vpw didn't plagiarize most of his stuff.
Oldiesman:
No, he took some writings word for word without credit,
like The Counsel of the Lord.
THAT's plagiarism.
Failure to cite may well get you thrown out of a college. It WILL make you
ineligible for a Masters or Doctorate. Depending on the specifics, it can be
plagiarism. We've discussed this for weeks and weeks.
Adaptation and written acknowledgement are two VERY different things.
Someone intellectually honest should try to keep them separate.
"Adaptation" may in effect be a word for word stealing, with a few words moved
around. vpw's plagiarism in RTHST 1st edition was word for word stealing.
He moved a few words around in later editions. This did not magically make it
"no longer plagiarism".
Further, the places he wrote where he failed to acknowledge-in introduction,
footnoting, etc. like the White and Orange Books-where he claimed they were
all him in print-
those are plagiarism because he claimed it was him.
We've discussed this before.
This is not difficult to understand.
If you didn't have a fixation with NOT seeing this, you'd have understood it
long ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Let's put it this way:
I do not believe in the Trinity. If I were to write about the subject, would I, of necessity, need to write about Wierwille or about my experience as a JW? Not necessarily, no more than I would have to credit someone if I were to say "Salvation comes by faith in Jesus Christ, according to Billy Graham."
Oldiesman, what Wierwille did was plagiarism. Not EVERYTHING he wrote was plagiarized. But PLENTY of what he wrote was plagiarized. There's a difference. You and I both know he plagiarized (not "adopted the beliefs of") Kenyon, Bullinger, Stiles, and BG Leonard. Those four are so easily documented that you're in simple denial if you don't acknowledge it (even if you feel the plagiarism was justified by God's instruction, you're admitting it was plagiarism; you're just not admitting there's anything wrong with it).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
do you guys always argue about vpw like this
reminds me of two guys in a barber shop going back and forth about whether or not barry bonds cheated,,,,
of course he did,, some people dont care, but he did cheat..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Amen.
And OJ did it. His acquittal is interesting to look at, though, isn't it. I could talk to the OJ jurors and argue with them until I'm blue in the face. But OJ did it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I know-even when looking right at the exact quotes, you'll read them differently.
The rest of us can READ, however.
As I've done before, I'll REpost the relevant quotes...
============
This is the ENTIRE preface to the White Book, RTHST, Receiving the Holy Spirit Today...
The truth of the matter is that the contents of JE Stiles "Gifts of the Holy Spirit",
and content by Bullinger and Stiles form the ENTIRE contents of RTHST.
You SHOULD know that-you own a copy of Stiles' book!
That's COMPLETELY the opposite of what he said here.
None of their names appeared here.
He said he used "the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook".
The truth of the matter is that the early editions of the book used
Stiles' book as his handbook, guidebook, and contents.
As we've mentioned lots of times, offhand comments here and there that
"I learned a bunch of stuff from some guys" does not constitute proper
attribution. If the holders of the copyrights had taken it to court, the suggestion
that it WOULD would produce gales of laughter in the courtroom. The credit
needs to be in the SAME book that's ripping off the material.
Take down your copy of "Babylon:Mystery Religion". Thumb thru it.
See, THAT's properly attributed. Furthermore, ALL of that book was taken from ONE
book-Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons". How many people do you know decided not to
trust Woodrow's book based on that? Correct: none.
(Neither do I-and I HAVE Hislop's book.)
Furthermore, what does "scattered across the continent" mean?
These men were in one building, and a Kansas tornado landed on it, dropping Leonard
in Canada, and Stiles, Kenyon, Bullinger across the US?
It's no longer a shock that you're actually supporting that claim, but I still feel
the need to point out it's been thoroughly (and throughly) discredited.
Naturally, you're unaware of this, even after reading the posts.
Yes it does. If he could learn something from someone-that person KNOWS what they're
teaching. Imagine taking a Physics class where the professor doesn't know Physics.
Ridiculous-the professor must know before he can teach.
So, if he learned from someone else, that person knew before teaching vpw,
which means at least one person knew, which means that it wasn't
unknown since the first century.
A dollar says I have to make this same point to Oldies before the end of 2005 again.
Then it would have been known since the first century.
No problem-if he wasn't busy putting forth that himself was some great one,
unique in 2000 years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
What is wrong with Kenyon?
I actually love his writing....am I missing something?
I know doc vic use to say "he writes like I teach" something like that, but what is wrong with him?
Help me out here, researchers.....
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I'm not talking about whether or not the teachings had any worth, just that they were plagiarized, i.e. STOLEN from the people that he supposedly learned from.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
You sure Oak?
I just had a Rev tell me Doc use to say that about Kenyon?
Doesn't matter, anyway, but what do ya'll think of Kenyon's writing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Bullinger may not have been a cultist, but he certainly was on the fringe of mainstream Christian scholarship in England.
The most important Biblical work going on in Great Britain in the second half of the 19th century was the revision of the King James Version. Committees were formed to go over each section of the KJV with a fine-toothed comb, and to compare it to the critical Greek texts that were in extant. Some of the compilers of those texts were invited onto those committees. Committee members included everything from Roman Catholic scholars to a Unitarian. They consulted with a commitee in the United States, as well.
Bullinger's name appears nowhere in this project as far as I could see.
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It was Bullinger.
It's in the thread
"the Way:Living in Wonderland" thread in the direct quotes from vpw.
It's directly quoted in the first 2 pages,
we haven't discussed it in detail yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I thought that guy's name was Alex Ford, not Arthur.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What's wrong with Kenyon?
First off, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with him. I'm saying that he's not terribly respected in mainstream Christianity. The big reason for this is that he's considered the founder of the "word-faith" movement, something TWI is very much a part of. Anyone who teaches "law of believing" type doctrine is a part of that movement. In addition to Wierwille, who plagiarized Kenyon, this includes Kenneth Hagin, who plagiarized Kenyon, and Kenneth Copeland, who plagiarized Kenyon.
Here's some criticism of Kenyon:
http://www.equip.org/free/DC755-1.htm
Sound familiar? "Confession of believe yields receipt of confession" anyone? Believing equals receiving?
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/word-faith2.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
Funny,(and scary)
Reading Kenyon(and DAKE) is what set me on a course to leave the Way Ministry.
I still need a lot more time to digest and think about things concerning doctrine. I know there are a lot of errors, (Raf- read your stuff, even hubby agreed with most of it.)
There is just too much stuff to redo, rethink, check, etc....who to believe? I would love to sit and research the Word all day, but it is just not possible.
Am I back to my own "opinion" on everything?
At some point I'll do a doctrinal thread for this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
You got it, Oak!
Bullinger mentions differences between the KJV and the ERV in his Companion Bible, if I recall. And a lot of Wayfers got into reading that version for awhile.
I would count George Lamsa among the strange people VPW sought for doctrinal info. I was surprised to find his Bible and commentaries still in print and available in occult bookstores. Does anyone know why that is?
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Don't know Shaz but they do include it in most of the Christian Academic Catalogs.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Boo..._search=1&cms=1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Thanks, Dove. I've been in a few Christian book stores in my time, rarely saw Lamsa there. In your opinion, do his works make the catalogue because there is a consensus that his stuff is good, or affordable, or just plain marketable? (Or perhaps the people with his copyright are just vocal?)
Lamsa's is the only Bible I know of to say "for this purpose was I spared," and his commentaries are not particularly scholarly, just long tomes that say "this means that." Reminded me of TWI -- I'm not gonna explain the verse to you, just scratch it out and write in what I tell ya!
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Bliss, it's not necessary to research all the questions. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead you into all the truth. Don't worry about using research materials or reference books. Simply read it prayerfully, slowly, asking the Lord what He wants you to know about what you're reading this time. He has a personal curriculum with your name on it. I'll dare say he probably won't be teaching you an integrated theology that causes things to fit from cover to cover.
As time goes on I trust my knowledge of the Bible less but my Lord more.
Just an approach you migh find helpful
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
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.