| Author | Comment | JBarrax
(7/31/00 11:06:30 pm)
| Enoch
Hi Rafael.
I don't want to magnify differences, but I don't think I expressed myself well regarding Enoch. I don't think God took him into heaven, but into Paradise. not upward, but forward. He was, imho, translated forward to the third heaven and earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. This would mean Jesus Christ is still the only man to have ascended up into heaven.
As for the phrase in Hebrews, "...these all died in faith...", you make a good point. I see it as the exception to the rule at work. If you cover a lot of points in a passage and most of the items mentioned fit the mold, you may make a broad concluding statement with the understanding that one specific item that was included is excepted. There is a similar instance in I Corinthians 15:27.
For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it it manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under him.
I think since Hebrews 11:5 says that "...Enoch was translated that he should not see death, and was not found because God translated him..." it is manifest that,
although all the others died, Enoch is the exception. Further--I say, furthermore, the record in Genesis seems to me to be corroboration of this; if you read it in its context.
Enoch's translation is mentioned in a long list of geneologies that are marked by a form of the figure of speech
repetitio. The use of this figure emphasizes the notable difference between Enoch and his contemporaries.
Genesis 5:3-27
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
12 And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:
13 And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
14 And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
16 And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
17 And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
19 And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
20 And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:
26 And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:
27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
About Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, and Methusaleh the same truth is
succinctly stated. And he died. This figure is made even more apparent and emphatic by its absence in verse 24. The only man whose biography is not concluded with "and he died" is Enoch. Further, we are told, "and he was not for God took him. As you all know, italics in the KJV indicate a word added that was absent in the original. So a stricter translation would read,
And Enoch walked with God; and he not ; for God took him.
What is the missing word? The "was" may be properly supplied. Or it may be a blank inserted there by God to call attention to it, (the figure ellipsis or omission). If so, the proper word to be inserted to complete the thought would be "died". And he died not, for God took him. You may think this is taking liberties. Maybe so. I'm not well versed in Hebrew scriptures (ha!), so I can't say this is the case.
However, if we look at it in the context of what surrounds it as well as the supplemental information in Hebrews 11, I think it makes sense to believe that Enoch so pleased God that God granted him a special favor; immortality. After all, this is the exact same grace that all of us who remain unto the coming of the Lord will receive; [with the notable
exception that Rafael mentioned we'll go upward into heaven. But we will be granted immortality.] I think God could have provided Enoch a way to receive immortality also, for God is no respecter of persons.
He couldn't take him upward into heaven, but he could take him forward into paradise.
Not that it's worth arguing about, but I thought I'd fully air my thoughts and see if that doesn't make a little more sense.
Thanks to all for the kind words. God bless!!
Peace
Jerry
| Rafael Olmeda
(8/1/00 10:29:07 am)
| Re: Enoch
Interesting theory. I'd never considered it, but it, too, fits the facts.
Tell you what, the first one of us to find him will ask him.
BTW: When did I say we end up in heaven? I think we all end up in paradise. Sounds like a new thread to me...
Blame me. I'm with the media. Edited by Rafael Olmeda at: 8/1/00 10:29:07 am
| JBarrax
(8/1/00 8:16:50 pm)
| Re: Enoch
Sorry to misrepresent you Rafael.
I misread the second paragraph of your post (where you quoted John 3:13).
peace
Jerry
| dennis s jones
(8/11/00 12:15:15 pm)
| i am amazed at the negitives in and about the twi
i was a member of the way international for approx 5 years, as well as a wow in el paso tx 82-82 i think. and since i have not been active, i , out of curiosity, just typed in twi on the web and found all these asstonishing comments about people i knew in the ministry.
i find it so hard to believe that everyone i knew in the ministry is evil now, is it possible that these comments are feeding on themselves? or just
melodramatic?
i was never treated badly, I was challenged in many ways, but i have to say that i learned so much about the the simple love for god and god's love for me that i could not say anything bad about the ministry.
dsj
| ready writer
(8/12/00 3:45:24 am)
| Re: II Timothy 3:16
"Instruction"
paideia {pahee-di'-ah} is translated chastening 3x, nurture 1x,
instruction 1x, chastisement 1x in these verses:
Eph. 6:4
2 Tim. 3:16
Heb. 12:5
Heb. 12:7
Heb. 12:8
Heb. 12:11
Here is Thayer's definition:
1) the whole training and education of children (which relates
to the cultivation of mind and morals, and employs for this purpose
now commands and admonitions, now reproof and punishment)
It also includes the training and care of the body.
2) whatever in adults also cultivates the soul, esp. by correcting mistakes
and curbing passions.
2a) instruction which aims at increasing virtue.
2b) chastisement, chastening, (of the evils with which God visits men for
their amendment).
I believe Dr. Wierwille was right in calling instruction in righteousness the overall
category of which doctrine, reproof, and instruction are components.
You make a fine point, however, in noting that this verse in II Timothy states that
ALL scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, and correction (for instruction in
righteousness), including the old testament. That is why in Romans 15:4
"whatsoever things were written aforetime" cannot be referring only to Thessalonians.
Isn't it great to think soundly with God's Word?
Ready Writer
| Rafael Olmeda
(8/12/00 5:00:54 pm)
| Re: i am amazed at the
negatives in and about the twi
Dennis,
Out of curiosity, why did you leave TWI? Like you, I did not experience any personal trauma in TWI, but I left (after less than a year of active involvement) when I saw signs of man-worship. The things I've seen on Waydale about what happened in the years after I left sadden me, but they do not surprise me.
P.S. I suspect this is the wrong thread for this discussion, since this thread is about the doctrine taught in PFAL. If you'd like to answer me privately, feel free.
Blame me. I'm with the media. | JBarrax
(8/12/00 10:49:50 pm)
| Re: II timothy cont'd
Hi Ready Writer, God bless
Thanks for your input. There is certainly room for different viewpoints on the translation of
paideia in II Timothy 3:16. The reason I think it should be translated discipline here, as Berry has it in his interlinear, is that this translation would, imo, make the list a complete summary of "all scripture". Some scripture describes God's
judgment on sinful man and cannot adequately be described (imo) as doctrine, reproof, or correction; the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the beheading of the 450 prophets of Baal, the plagues of Egypt and those in Revelation for instance.
Sorry for the long hiatus, btw. I've been on vacation since last Friday without internet access. I did get a little more reviewing done and hope to post that material tomorrow.
Peace
Jerry
| ready writer
(8/13/00 3:57:09 am)
| Re: II timothy cont'd
Jerry,
I concur with "discipline" as a possible translation for all uses of paideia.
There is doctrine, reproof, and correction in all disciplines (not just righteousness), such a ,usic performance or sports or child-raising.
From the six uses in Ephesians, Timothy, and Hebrews, I don't see how Thayer finds "judgment" or "punishment" to be involved. So, I will look further, with related words and the Septuagint.
Although I use things like Thayer's, I like to let the Bible define its own terms as a rule.
Orthotmounta!
Ready Writer
| looking2go
(8/13/00 12:28:31 pm)
| body,soul,spirit/formed,made,created
Having
separated myself from wayworld over14 years ago( after 17 years involvement) I still marvel at the basic truths in PFAL as it pertains to the above subjects. Most, if not all "debates" concerning
identity of Jesus Christ, Trinity, and the infamous posting re: Col1:27
among others are clearly understood without any contradiction. In fact it is my belief that salvation in the OT can be readily
comprehend in light of body, soul & spirit. I've located several areas of PFAL that I currently question, but some of the posts I have read do not even state the basic teaching correctly. I know that God answered my prayer when I was
given an invite to take the class. I know that many of you took the class where the
coordinator was considerably less than stellar.
| Used No More
(8/13/00 10:21:36 pm)
| Re: PFAL REVIEW
I agree with rev2, that essentially, PFAL was a very good foundation to researching the Word. I need to study the record more myself, but I don't want to get into it looking for fault because I've done that before and that was all I found - fault. VPW never claimed to be perfect in this class. In fact, I remember him once writing in one of his publications, ..."if any errors are inclusive to this book...they are mine and mine alone..." I wish I could find it. I certainly remember it. We will find other errors I am sure. But for myself, I am forever grateful to this guy to get me started studying and researching the Bible for myself. I was not so grateful to the president after him to build dependency on others for what the truth was. This means VPW left his work open to scrutiny. LCM did not. Now we can criticize VPW. Frankly, I think he should be posthumously commended for teaching us how to find his mistakes, that is, the ones we do find that are truly errors. Many times I thought he was in error only to find out I was wrong.
I know we'll find more about VPW as time goes on, but he never killed his ministry. Frankly, getting over 125,000 people in the United States alone turned on to the accuracy of the Word is not such a bad record after all.
VPW did all right.
Steve
(Okay - fire back)
| JBarrax
(8/13/00 10:43:24 pm)
| doctrine, reproof, correction??
Hello all you happy people.
I spent some time during vacation studying VP's definition of biblical correction. It's very eye-opening stuff in light of the scandalous confession and resignation of his successor. There are three errors in this section I'd like to address.
1] On page 86 of my old paperback version of PFAL, Dr. Wierwille, using David and Nathan as an example of correction, states the following.
"A few people knew about the sequence of events leading to David's marriage but nobody had a right to say anything because David was king and every woman in the kingdom was technically the property of the king."
I remembered VP's statements to this effect in the Advanced Class, but I was genuinely surprised that this was in PFAL. Not just in the "live" videotaped version, but right there in black & white. Why did he feel it necessary to include that statement in the foundational class? Was he, as some here have claimed, practicing adultery that long ago? Was this designed to lay the groundwork for the scandalous 'inner circle' teachings of the Way Corps (sorry, bad pun)?
Regardless of VP's motive for including this statement, the main problem with it is it's just plain wrong. There's not one scripture that indicates that David had a right to take any woman in Israel. On the contrary, Nathan's reproof centers not on the murder of Uriah, [which VP claimed was the thing that God reproved], but the taking of another man's wife (II Samuel 12:1-4). Furthermore, if David had a right to any woman in the kingdom, why was part of his
judgment ( anyone?) the taking of his own wives in broad daylight by his son Absalom (II Samuel 12:11 & 12, 16:22)?
2] Also on page 86, we read the following: "...And Nathan said, "Oh Lord, not me. I don't want to go to David because old David is handy at chopping off heads." In the filmed class, VP further added that David would just love to have the prophet's head. Where the hell did he get this idea? This is a VERY serious accusation to level at David, who was after all a prophet himself. There is absolutely *nothing* in the context that indicates that David was out to murder the prophet. There's not even any indication that Nathan hesitated to reprove David.
II Samuel 12:1 And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.
Why VP saw fit to insert this is puzzling. He glossed over the adultery with Bathsheba, then accused David of wanting to murder Nathan. None of which is documented in the scripture.
3} While VP was on a roll excusing one sin and inventing another, he decided to move some verses around to suit his theology. On pages 87 & 88, we read, "...At that moment David recognized the truth of what Nathan was bringing from God and David said, "Well I'm sorry" He turned to God and asked God to forgive him. Then is it says in the Word of God David was a man after God's own heart."
Actually it was said that David was a man after God's own heart many years BEFORE this happened. It was in a prophesy spoken by Samuel in reproof to David predecessor, King Saul.
I Samuel 13:14 But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the LORD commanded thee.
David was accounted a man after God's own heart years before he accepted Nathan's reproof. That VP could have
accidentally contradicted this in the class is understandable, but to leave it in print shows a disdain for the accuracy of the Word he so vehemently promoted. This cavalier disregard for accuracy is brazenly demonstrated in his summary of this section on page 88.
"Isn't that a tremendous verse of scripture when we examine it closely to see the greatness of God's Word?"
WHAT VERSE OF SCRIPTURE? He never QUOTED a verse! The section begins, not with "turn to II Samuel.." but with "Take David for instance." And how could he have the audacity to claim he'd 'examined it closely' when he didn't even READ it? He paraphrased the narrative, rewriting it to suit his whim, moved things from one book of the Bible to another, and then claimed to have examined it closely.
This is incredibly shoddy teaching from a man who claimed to have dedicated his life to the integrity and accuracy of God's Word. I just can't believe I didn't see any of this before.
I would really like to know if anyone on the research staff pointed these things out to "Our Father in the Word" and what his response was.
Peace
Jerry
| Danny Mahar
(8/14/00 11:47:57 am)
| Re: doctrine, reproof, correction??
Brilliant observations, Jerry.
Another PFAL teaching with which I saw many holes after shortly
leaving the Way was the supposed correspondence of the actions,
"form", "made" and "create" with "body", "soul", and "spirit".
Couldn't do it. There was no consistent pattern in Genesis or anywhere
else to support it. Sounded good when I first heard it. But it falls apart
under scrutiny.
Danny
| ready writer
(8/14/00 3:28:22 pm)
| Re: doctrine, reproof, correction??
Thank you Jerry!
I just posted on another thread, "fix the garbage King David doctrine" and you have pointed out another reason why it needs to be fixed.
I noticed the discrepancy about "man after God's own heart" but did not notice just how sloppy that teaching was.
Thanks again.
Ready Writer
| Orange Cat
(8/14/00 3:59:36 pm)
| Every woman belongs to the king
Wow, Jerry Thanks - didn't realize that peculiar doctrine made it into PFAL print.
I remember approaching one of my Jewish profs to ask him about VP's assertion (in a source he could not recall) that bastards were taken to the temple for a bar-mitzvah when they were 12 instead of 13. Got a strange look on that one - and the prof patiently tried to explain to my closed ears when the bar-mitzvah celebration actually began historically. ((Cringe))
Orange Cat
| artios48
(8/14/00 7:40:14 pm)
| Formed, Made, Created
This 'doctrine' sorta made sense to me when matched up with body, soul and spirit, but I never did figure out what 'made' meant according to PFAL. I remember trying to understand this and reading the definition in the book, but it was defined using itself as part of the definition. (Can someone quick quote the PFAL definition?)
Gerry,
who has always wanted to start this thread, but is totally unqualified to do so. (Expect some comments as I get time to contribute.)
| JBarrax
(8/14/00 10:15:11 pm)
| Re: Made
According to my organic audio memory bank, VP's definition of "made" was, "there is a substance required of which the thing made consists".
That may not be exact, but I'm pretty sure that's what he said. It stuck in my head because, as Artios says, it makes no sense. The cardinal rule of definitions is that one cannot use a word in its own definition.
What's a google? Well, it's a big googley thing.
This is double-talk at worst, a poor definition at best.
Jerry
| Danny Mahar
(8/14/00 11:18:30 pm)
| Form, Made, Created
I'm going over some old notes I did when reviewing this topic over 10 years ago.
1. A proof verse, Isaiah 43:6-7, used by VPW -
"...for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him".
The main objection I have here is that this passage is not concerned at all with the "creation" of Adam and Eve, or of the origin of the mankind. It is concerned with the creation of the nation of Israel: (Isa.43:1) "But now thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel...(Isa.43:6-7)
"...everyone that is called by My name..." (Isa.43:15) "I am the Lord your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King" ;( Isa.43:20-22 ) "...My people, My chosen. This people I have formed for myself....
2.
Gen.1:26 "Let us make man in our image"
So if following the reasoning of VPW of correlating the action of "make" with "soul",
should we then assume God is actually a "soul" (or has a "soul") rather than being a "spirit"?
And Gen.1:27: "And God created man in his own image; male and female he created them".
"male" and "female"? If correlating the action of "create" with "spirit", are not male and
female issues of gender thought to be more associated with the physical and mental characteristics of
body and soul? (though perhaps a incorrect assumption to begin with, but I'm trying to follow the Way logic
here ).
3.
Gen.2:1 "And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it - because therein rested He from all His
work which God by CREATING had MADE".[ or, as the Concordant version reads, which God "creates to make"]. Okay, I'm getting a bad headache here in view of VPW's logic .
Probably the most consistent usage in VPW's proposition is "formed" with "body", but after that, the proposed created-spirit, made-soul doesn't strike me as falling into a consistent pattern.
In my opinion, it just doesn't fly.
Danny
| JBarrax
(8/15/00 9:49:27 pm)
| Re: II Timothy 3:17
Howdy all.
I'd like to add to the discussion on formed, made, and created, but I haven't gotten that far yet. I'm still muddling through "session two" which is chapter six in Power for Abundant Living. This post is about VP's teaching on II Timothy 3:17, regarding which I only have two comments.
1] "Let us see who is a man of God. The word "man" in this usage means "one who is a spokesman for God. one who speaks for God."
"In this usage"? VP declares here that there is a usage of this word that means one who speaks for God. The Greek from which "man" is translated is anthropos. Bullinger's lexicon defines anthropos as follows:
(ano athrein te opi, looking upwards with his countenance, or from ano trepein opa, turning his view upwards) man; Lat., homo, i.e. an individual of the human race, a man or woman, a person, a human being, the generic name, relatively, to gods and animals. Man was made "out of the dust of the ground," made in the image of Elohim, the second person of the Trinity.
(a)with huios, Son, the Son of Man, meaning the Lord Jesus Christ, "the word made flesh."
So according to Bullinger, there are two "usages" of anthropos; one which means a person and the other with the word huios, which means Son of Man; Jesus Christ. But as D.A. Reed has stated on the dechomai and lambano thread, we can't go by one theologian's lexicon, but must instead examine the word in its context. Actually, my understanding of VP's usage of the word "usage" is that the usage of a word (if it has variant usages) is determined by examing it in the verse and context (i.e. the usages of pneuma).
So the only way to determine if there is such a usage of anthropos is to read em in the verses. I'll admit, I didn't read all 504 New Testament uses of anthropos; just the 449 between Matthew and II Timothy 3:17. Of these 449, there are only two that can possibly be interpreted as "one who speaks for God." (I Thess. 4:8 and I Timothy 5:24). I don't think two verses out of 449 constitute a particular usage of a word. Furthermore, and perhaps more to the point, since the verse speaks plainly of man of God, why do we need to state there's a particular usage of "man" that carries this meaning. The meaning is conveyed, not by a particular usage of anthropos, but by the fact that it's right next to words, "of God." Duh.
It seems to me the only reason for VP fabricating an arcane usage of a word when the meaning is plainly supplied is to impress us with his deep and vast knowledge of the Bible. You may think I'm splitting hairs. Take a look at what comes next.
2] "Then in II Timothy 3:17 comes the next word: "That the man of God may be perfect, throughly..." The word is "throughly", not thoroughly". I have asked hundreds of people in classes to read this verse of scripture and 99 out of 100 will read that word "thoroughly". When we do not read what is written, how can we expect to understand the Word of God?"
Guess what? The word "throughly" is not even in the Greek text!. The word "throughly" is added as an adjective to more fully translate the word "furnished" (exartizo). How can we expect to understand the Word of God when we treat the added words of the King James translators as if they were God-breathed?
Coming from the same man who had just taught the important difference between italicized words and those of the original text, this is puzzling to say the least. Did he not know that the word "throughly" wasn't in the text? He had to. Because on page 91 he mentions the word "furnished" (exartizo) and relates it back to the word "perfect" (artios) at the
beginning of the verse.
"The Greek word for "perfect" is artios; the Greek word for "furnished" is exartizo...Literally it says, "That the man of God may be perfect, throughly perfected..."
So he had to know that "throughly" was added by the translators. Still he saw fit to close the chapter with this statement.
"Not only is the man of God to be perfect, but he is to be through and through and throughly perfected."
So here we have a doctrine built on an word VP had to know wasn't even in the Word of God. I don't know if this bothers anyone else, but I find it maddening. I'm not sure whether to call it hypocrisy, lunacy or just plain flimflam, but whatever it is, it ain't biblical research.
Peace
Jerry
| chastened
(8/16/00 1:11:02 am)
| Re: II Timothy 3:17
A long time ago I looked up the word *throughly* in an old English dictionary, and found it meant *thoroughly*- Ha- same meaning, same definition.
Now I wash my hands throughly.
chastened
| Orange Cat
(8/16/00 8:05:14 am)
| Re: II Timothy 3:17
Jerry - you make my day, man.
Orange Cat
|
|
