| Author | Comment | JBarrax
(9/24/00 5:22:25 pm)
| PFAL REVIEW: Part 2
Hello all, and God bless!!
Due to the increasing length of the PFAL REVIEW thread, I've started Part 2. We'll start here with the beginning of PFAL PART III: How the Bible Interprets Itself. I know it's confusing. I tried to change the subject heading of the first thread to PFAL REVIEW: Parts I & II, which would be more accurate. Technically, this is part III, but it's thread number two. Got it?
Hee hee! It's almost as confusing as the Class!
PFAL Part III begins with II Peter 1:20 and Dr.Wierwille's interpretation thereof, which, in keeping with the first two sections of the book, is backwards.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
"This is the first thing one must know if he is going to understand the greatness of God's revelation in His Word. No prophecy, not one verse of Scripture, is of any private interpretation.
If I say, "This is what I think it means," I am giving my private interpretation..."
This interpretation of the phrase "private interpretation" is
backwards, because, yet again, Wierwille ignored the context. This phrase is explained in the context, which talks not about what we do with the Scripture, but How we got it.
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Peter is reassuring the Church that what he and the other Apostles had taught wasn't of their imaginations, but was what they had seen and heard of Jesus Christ and,
furthermore, that it was supported; surpassed even, by the truth of the
Scriptures, which were not given by the will of man, but by the Holy Ghost. "Private Interpretation" refers to someone giving his own ideas instead of what God revealed by the Holy Spirit. So the verse deals not with what we do with the Scriptures, but how we got the scriptures.
Ironically, VP's explanation of the Greek words involved reinforce this truth. On page 146, he explains that "private" is translated from the Greek word idios, which means "one's own". And the word "interpretation" is from epilusis, which means "release from (Bullinger)", or "an unloosing...(Berry)". The prophecy came not from one's own unloosing. He even says in the class, "I did not unfold it; you did not unfold it." So he knew what it really meant. Yet he chose to twist the verse to say something entirely different. Furthermore, his twisted conclusion that we dare not think about the meaning of scripture is contradicted by the scripture itself. Time and again, God tells us to think about his Word and its meaning. Not just to think about it, but to think deeply, to meditate on it.
Joshua 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
Psalms 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
Psalms 119:15 I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways.
119:23 Princes also did sit and speak against me: but thy servant did meditate in thy statutes.
119:48 My hands also will I lift up unto thy commandments, which I have loved; and I will meditate in thy statutes.
I Timothy 4:15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. (See also Psalms 119:78, 119:148, and 143:5)
God gave Daniel revelation. Then he didn't say, "Now don't you dare think about what this means!" Rather, via Gabriel, God told Daniel to consider its meaning.
Daniel 9:21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.
God put holy spirit upon Daniel so he would have the capacity to understand spiritual matters. But he also told him to use his mind and will to bring that understanding to completion. Likewise we have been given holy spirit and the ability to understand spiritual matters as Jesse Joeb mentioned in his PFAL REVIEW post (I Corinthians 2:14). And God expects us to consider His Word so that we may understand it.
II Timothy 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.
The word "understanding" in II Timothy is the Greek word sunesis which refers the rivers of thought flowing together. How can rivers of thought flow together if we don't think? We are to think, consider, and meditate on God's Word in order to gain the understanding God has spiritually enabled us to receive.
One of the most controversial topics regarding TWI and PFAL is the question of brainwashing. Were we or weren't we brainwashed? A related question that has been raised repeatedly on this thread is "why didn't I see this sooner?" Well the answer I think is right here. Dr.
Wierwille told us explicitly NOT to THINK about what he was teaching.
"...tell you somethin. I don't care what you think!...For you and I have to get to the place where we think what the Word says and quit thinking that we think we think to know the accuracy of the Word!"
When you present information and emphatically tell people not to think about it, being accused of brainwashing is inevitable.
Now we come to a frightening conclusion. As Loy Craig once said regarding the logic of the anti-abortion movement, if your major premise is wrong, your conclusions have to be wrong. The meat of PFAL is "How the Bible Interprets Itself". This series of principles is based on the false teaching that we cannot interpret the scripture. If the underlying creed or belief is wrong, as I think it is, how can these "keys to the Word's interpretation" be right? Well sadly, I don't think they are. As I'll show in the next post, the keys VP presents are not what they claim to be. His claim that "All scripture interprets itself in the verse, in the context, or where it's been used before" is false; erroneous; wrong. Stay tuned.
So if the "no private interpretation" mantra is wrong, and the Bible doesn't interpret itself, what do we have? Well we still have a powerful Word. As Peter said, we have not followed cunningly devised fables. We have the eyewitness account of the Apostles, plus a more sure word of prophecy that came as Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. God's Word may not fit in our little boxes of scientific precision, but it's still living and powerful, and still imparts understanding, joy, peace, faith, and eternal life to those who receive it.
One final comment. I find it ironic that, just as with John 10:10, Dr. Wierwille
took a verse out of its context in such a way that he demonstrated the very error the context speaks of. (See PFAL REVIEW part one) Peter says we have not followed cunningly devised fables. VP
lifted verse 20 out of this context and twisted its meaning to tell thousands of followers that they should accept what he said without thinking. As we have seen, much of what he said is error; the magic of believing, fear is a law, the twisting of II Timothy 2:15 & 3:16, the meanings of apistia, and pros, and the loony teaching about David having the right to any woman in the kingdom. PFAL is the foundation for Victor Paul
Wierwille's cunningly devised fables.
I think this irony is just one testimony to the power and wisdom of God's Word. Those who choose to manipulate the scriptures to their own ends are at the same time exposed and condemned thereby.
Peace
Jerry
| Outin88
(9/9/00 10:11:49 pm)
| Re: PFAL REVIEW: PART 2
Wow Jerry, great sharing, thanks.
Here is the NIV translation of II Peter 1:20
"Above all, you must understand, that no prophecy of the scripture came about by the prophets own intepretation."
The NIV translation makes it clear that it's talking about the men who wrote the Word via revealtion, not the people who read the Word and inerpret it. Peter is telling us that the ones writing by revelation aren't making up their own interpreation of the Word.
The context of this section in II Peter 1, leading up to
II Peter 1:20 is concerned with the origin of scripture not the interpretation of it.
Thanks again Jerry for sharing this. God bless.
| Splissken07
(9/17/00 7:19:18 pm)
| AMEN!!
This was one part of the PFAL class I hated was when VPW would tell the story of how he could ask someone what a verse means and they would say "well, I think it means...". VPW would then go into a mini
tirade about how you should say "the Word says this" or "the Word says that". And then this verse about no private interpretation would be brought up. I remember when I sat through PFAL the first time I could not believe the arrogance in how this part (along with most of it) was taught. Basically, I always summed up what VPW said at this part with "if anyone asks you what this part or that part of the Word says, you answer them with a definite answer and refuse to be meek if you are wrong!!!"
And you speak of contradicting himself, this whole verse in the teaching
contradicts himself. If the context he taught this verse in was true, then he surely contradicted himself with his own private interpretations with some of those fairy tales he came up with.
Edited by: Splissken07 9/17/00 7:19:18 pm
| JBarrax
(9/10/00 11:53:33 pm)
| Re: IN THE VERSE: ELI, ELI
Hello all, God bless.
Right after flipping II Peter 1:20, VP went into the keys to the Word's
interpretation; in the verse, in its context or where it's been used before. I don't see a problem with the idea of understanding words according to their biblical usage as opposed to their current meaning.
The second subheading under the IN THE VERSE topic is that all words in the Verse must be in harmony with the rest of the verse and all other verses on the subject. To exemplify this principle, Dr.
Wierwille used Matthew 27:46.
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Now I can't go into great detail in analyzing VP's work here because I don't have access to an Aramaic concordance. However, there are some points to consider. Dr.
Wierwille objected to this translation on the grounds that it contradicts the verses which speak of God's faithfulness to Christ. In his handling of this verse, Dr.
Wierwille contradicted himself and his principles.
"...First of all, the foreign words inserted in that verse are Aramaic words. Jesus spoke Aramaic....The word eli means "my God". But there is no Aramaic word like the word lama. There is a word lmna. Lmna is always a cry of victory, a declaration of "for this purpose," or "for this reason." The root of sabachthani is shbk. Shbk means "to reserve," "to leave," "to spare," or "to keep."
Do you see the contradiction? If these words are Aramaic words, how can he say that there is no Aramaic word like lama? If there's no such Aramaic word, how can we say that this is Aramaic?
This is almost blatant doubletalk.
The contradiction of his principles is in the next step. Having tossed aside the word printed in the King James,
Wierwille substituted lmna. Can't do that. It was VP who stridently told us in session three that the words of the Word are perfect and God's Word means what it says and says what it means. "Read what's written!"
This is the same man who obsessed over the word "throughly" in II Timothy 3:17 despite the fact that it's not even in the Greek text. Here we have words that are in the text and he's changing them to suit his whim. VP showed a higher regard for words men added than for those of the ancient manuscript! Seems backward to me.
To compound his error, VP, in the class, referred to several Old Testament verses, (including I Kings 19:18) that supposedly use this word shbk. The word translated "left" in this verse is actually the Hebrew word sha'ar. So either we're
dealing with a different word or a different language. Either way, it violates the "minute accuracy" VP espoused in the previous sessions. In fact, I have a letter from Dr.
Wierwille in which he reproved me for doing the same thing in a research project I asked him about in 1985. So once again, VP's research principles only count when they don't get in the way of teaching what he wants to teach. Some would call this hypocrisy.
So if the "cry of triumph" teaching is based on slippery reasoning, what do we do with this verse? Well VP's entire premise was that it can't contradict the rest of the verses regarding Jesus and God. Well why not? It's not the only contradiction in God's Word. But it is, I think, a magnificent example of Christ fulfilling his purpose.
As Outin88 posted on the adjacent thread about this verse, I believe Jesus was doing his job till the bitter end. The Living Word was speaking God's Word to Israel even as he hung on the cross. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" is the beginning of the 22nd Psalm, in which David
prophesied about the crucifixion and rejection of the Christ (verses 7 & 8). Jesus was telling them, through his agony, that they were seeing the Scripture fulfilled. Jesus utterance of these words was no more a contradiction of God's goodness than it was when David penned them ages before.
Psalms 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.
David was not only a man after God's own heart, but a prophet. Could we not also say that David's assertion that God didn't hear his prayer contradicts the bulk of God's Word? So why would it be a contradiction for Jesus Christ to say this but okay for David?
Nuff said about that. We can rightly interpret most of God's Word right in the verse, right where it's written: but not by replacing unfamiliar words with those that fit our theology.
Peace
Jerry
| Psalm 71 one
(9/11/00 12:38:03 am)
| Re: IN THE VERSE: ELI, ELI
Sorry, Jerry I
didn't look here when I posted my thread--I had looked in the pfal part 1 and
hadn't seen it! Oooops!!
| Outin88
(9/11/00 9:57:03 am)
| Eli Eli & Psalm 22
Hi Jerry, here is what I wrote on the other thread.
Matthew 27:46
"And about the ninth hour Jesus Cried with a loud voice, saying ELI ELI, Lama Sabachthani? that is to say, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
I think VPW got his definition of this subject from Lamsa which is probably the only Bible version that does not translate "My God My God why hast thou forsaken me".
Lamsa I've been told was exposed by the society of Biblical literature for using
manuscripts as late as the 16th century. When he claimed he had early
manuscripts. I believe the Messiah 7 website has more info on Lamsa.
Jesus Christ was reaching out to people with his dying breath to witness to Israel with a Psalm which they would know. Psalms 22, 23 & 24 are three very famous chapters in Jewish literature, I'm told.
Here Jesus Christ was covered in blood, beaten beyond recognition and he is reaching out comforting the people watching him and witnessing to them that He is the Messiah by quoting Psalm 22 and fulfilling God's Word.
Read Psalm 22, you can see he is showing them that the scripture is coming to pass, for example;
Psalm 22:7,8 (NIV)
"All who see me mock me, they hurl insults shaking their heads; He trusts in the Lord let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him since he delights in him."
Now check Mark 15:29-32 (NIV)
"Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, so you who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself. Let this Christ, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross that we may see and believe. Those crucified also heaped insults on him."
See the parallels, Jesus was showing them that prophecy was being fulfilled before their eyes, He was witnessing to them.
Please read the rest of Psalm 22 you will see many parallels in the Gospels. I believe that VPW got it wrong on this one and Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 to witness.
God bless ya'll.
| JBarrax
(9/11/00 7:08:23 pm)
| Eli Eli
Thanks Outin.
Jerry
| lilome
(9/15/00 1:17:55 pm)
| Keys of interpretation
Great points made in this thread!
Well, here are a couple of things regarding II Timothy 2:15 and John 5:39, the two verses used to convince us that "studying the word" intellectually was God's will.
In handling these two verses VPW forgot all about his keys.
II Timothy 2:15 (...as it is used before)
"Study to show thyself...". In Greek: "Spoudason..."
That "spoudazo" simply means to try your best, has nothing to do with intellectual studies. A verse that can help us see its meaning is Ephesians 4:3, where the word "endeavouring" is the word "spoudazo".
I know VPW mentioned something about "dilligent effort" when handling this verse, but I believe it was all blurred so that he could promote his idea of what that "study" should mean and how it should be interpreted.
I don't know what "to study" meant in King James english. I believe it could be something to the effect of "endeavour". Anyone can answer?
John 5:39 (...in the context)
"eraunate...". This word can either be translated as "you search..." (simply stating the fact) or "search..." (giving orders or instructions).
Which of the two? It's inevitably a matter of interpretation. The KJV translators chose the latter.
I believe the former would have rendered the correct meaning of this verse.
Read the whole passage from verse 37 to verse 40! He is not telling them what to do. He is reproving them for what they were doing, namely searching the scriptures thinking that in them they had eternal life, while not believing in the One the Father had sent and refusing to go to Him to find life.
This is how that "ye think" in verse 39 can be explained also! It is not to be understood as "ye believe" as the Way taught. The word used has no other meaning than the totally subjective "I think" as in "this is my opinion". That's what they thought, but they were wrong!
BTW, Martin Luther got them both right in his German translation of the Bible at about the same time.
I truly believe that God is the only One who can open our eyes to His truth. We can know the whole Bible and still not understand a thing. I'm glad He is no respecter of persons and no academic credentials are needed for the understanding that comes from Him.
| lilome
(9/16/00 3:31:31 pm)
| To Whom It Is Addressed
Well, let me start by saying that I no longer espouse dispensationalism. I think this doctrine made us neglect and "consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ...".
Not too long ago I read a booklet by Cornelius R. Stam, a dispensational preacher, titled "Unanswered Prayer".
What he had to say was in a nutshell the following:
"And what about prayer in this age of abounding sin and overabounding grace? Does God promise to grant whatsoever we ask in prayer believing? He does not. Even Paul had to learn this. (See II Cor. 12:8-10). He offers us something better and more perfectly suited to our circumstances".
Then, he goes on to talk about the promises found in the church epistles: ...all things work together for good, ...and the peace of God which passeth all understanding shall keep your hearts and minds...,
...able to do exceeding abundantly above...
And then it occurred to me: What about VPW? To support the Law of Believing he used verses from the Gospels, which have no equivalent in the church epistles, while at the same time teaching that the Gospels were not addressed to us! Talk about contradicting himself!
BTW, there is one thing I don't understand. If the Gospels were roughly written between the years 45-90
A.D., long after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the day of Pentecost, how could they only be addressed to the people who lived while Christ was on Earth? They hadn't even been written at that time and when they were written, a new dispensation had already begun! You know what I mean?
I hope JBarrax will have some things to tell us about
Rom:15:4: For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
I can't see the reference to the O.T. in this verse.
I always thought it might refer to something else, maybe even I Thessalonians, the first epistle written, where it talks about our Hope and the
Resurrection of the Dead.
And, again, "for our learning" that we might be taught from them (Greek: didaskalia) not so that we may discard them as irrelevant to our age.
| lilome
(9/16/00 4:09:38 pm)
| Keys to interpretation - punctuation etc.
Another verse handled by VPW in the PFAL section about the keys to interpretation of the scriptures, is
Acts:21:14: And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.
There, by moving those commas around, he claimed that the verse says that the people knew it was not God's will for Paul to go to Jerusalem and pleaded with him
"The will of the Lord be done (don't go!)", but when he would not be persuaded they ceased saying these things.
I guess this would be a possible interpretation of the English text. The Greek, nevertheless, is very clear and allows for no other interpretation than the one rendered by the KJV translators.
That "saying" is the word "eipontes". A participle of the Simple Past A, which could be replaced by the words
"and said".
Furthermore, "ceased" is the word "hesuchazo", which means rather to "keep quiet" than to "stop" in general.
To make a long story short, no matter what you do with the comma, the meaning is always the same:
"....we stopped (talking) and said, The will of the Lord be done"
My question is: why did he, in this instance, not check the Greek, but rather, played around with the commas in the somewhat ambiguous English text?
To support his doctrine that we are called to a life of comfort and abundance? That it could have never been God's will for Paul to go to Jerusalem? Why, then, all the apostles and most of all Paul, were miserable failures, disobedient and unbelieving people. At least, that's what's manifested by the things they had to go through life and by the deaths they suffered. God forbid!
P.S. I don't have any of the Way books any more and I haven't had PFAL since 1990. So, everything I write about are just some things I can remember off the top of my head. I hope I'm not too vague.
| JBarrax
(9/16/00 11:10:26 pm)
| Paul in Jerusalem
Lilolme,
You make some great points about VP's handling of the section about Paul's trip to Jerusalem. I have just recently reread this section of PFAL, and, I must confess, I didn't check the Greek from which the KJV was derived. I did notice however, that VP misrepresented the remainder of Paul's ministry in his attempt to prove his case about the folly of his trip to Jerusalem.
VP said that the record in Acts 26:28 proves that Paul was "outside the will of God". This cannot be, for Acts 23:11 states that Jesus Christ himself visited Paul while he was in prison and encouraged him, and told him he would witness to
Caesar on Christ's behalf.
And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
So VP's depiction of Paul being outside the will of God at the time of his appearance before King Agrippa was wrong. Did he have an ulterior motive for his erroneous disparaging of Paul's character? I don't know. But it's certainly not the first time
Wierwille contradicted his own "research principles" in order to tout his opinion. This is of course the primary problem with PFAL. It author does not stick to the principles he claims to champion. If he were consistent in his use of the "keys" he so passionately espoused, we would have a very different doctrine.
Peace
Jerry
| evanpyle
(9/16/00 11:32:31 pm)
| Re: Paul in Jerusalem
Did
Wierwille have an ulterior motive in unjustly denigrating Paul in this manner? Well, I certainly can't detect motives, but I can observe fruit. I seems a matter of consistency for
Wierwille to bring Paul down. Why. Because we have put Paul "waaaay up here, and we're just measly believers on the misty flats below".
Perhaps there was a noble motive in wishing to bring people up and say "I could be Paul". Too bad he does it by trying to knock down Paul a few notches. Further, we can't be like Paul. He is cited in the Bible as an example to us. He was given the gospel preached in the epistles. He occupies a unique spot in the Christian pantheon that will be occupied by nobody else.
But Wierwille's other actions and surreptitious self-promotion as The Man of God™ point to another possible, and likely motive...to position himself as Paul's equal...no...as his superior, because he sees Paul's 'mistake', makes light of it, and shows himself to be above Paul's weakness.
Grrrrrrr!
Ok, better stop, now I'm getting mad!
| JBarrax
(9/17/00 1:08:41 am)
| Four Crucified: Allos vs. Heteros
Again Lilolme brings up a great point about Acts 21:14.
"I guess this would be a possible interpretation of the English text. The Greek, nevertheless, is very clear and allows for no other interpretation than the one rendered by the KJV translators...."
Through all my years in TWI and the subsequent years in Waybrain, I criticized the King James translators for their inconsistency. I was reading a passage just last week in which one Greek word, used 8 times in a few verses was translated 3 different ways (logizomai in Romans 4:3-11). We were taught over and over that Greek is a very precise language, and VP repeatedly claimed that the Greek words used were perfect in their semantic accuracy. This, as I've noted in the review of the PFAL teaching on pros and apistia is false. His definition of pros only applies to about 16 uses out of over 400. The truth is Greek words are not used with the kind of precision or consistency that lends itself to VP's exact definitions and the doctrinal edifices he built on them.
Another example is found in his treatment of heteros and allos, building blocks of the "four crucified" teaching. Now there may or may not have been four people crucified with Christ. I don't care one way or the other anymore. My point here is that the specific definitions of the Greek words involved are incorrect because of their oversimplification. On page 167 of Power for Abundant Living, we read,
"There are two different words translated "other" in John 19 and Luke 23. One word is heteros, and the other word is allos. Both heteros and allos are translated "other", but heteros means "other when only two may be invovled." while allos means "other, when more than two may be involved." The word "other" in John 19:32 is allos
Oh really? Well then it should be obvious which words are used in the following verses. One is allos and the other heteros. Guess which is which.
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.
According to VP's definitions, we would guess that the first "other" is heteros because a man only has two cheeks and that the second is allos because there may have been more than two other cities involved. And we would be dead wrong.
The verses are Matthew 5:39, in which allos is used of the other cheek, and Luke 4:43, in which heteros is used referring to "other cities". Of course there are verses in which these words are used according to VP's definition, but the fact that they seem to be interchangeable in the whole of the New Testament defuses the claim the the "sharp accuracy" of God's Word demanded that heteros be used in Luke 23:32 and allos in John 19:32. Of the 94 uses of heteros in the NT, only about 20% of them fit
Wierwille's definition. That's not very sharp accuracy.
Of course there are other reasons for believing there were four crucified with Jesus; the difference in the sequence of events in Matthew and Luke, the use of the word "midst" and the addition of the word "one in John 19:18, but the impact of this teaching has been for me anyway, as a testimony to the "minute accuracy" of the Bible. If we take this view we fall into the Pharisaic mindset that Lilolme criticized above. We spend so much time studying the jots and tittles of the scripture that we miss the point and become blinded to the Living Word and the heart of the God who authored it.
The reason the King James translation is inconsistent is because the Greek texts from which it was translated are inconsistent. The Greek text does not have the semantic precision we've been taught to read into it. Unless of course there are variant usages for just about every Greek word used in the NT. And if we have to keep track of each usage of each word, we'll never have time to love God or do good works that benefit God's people.
Why did a ministry that claims to know more about God's Word than anybody else become such a legalistic, hateful, hypocritical, and oppressive religion? Because we elevated the "mathematical exactness and scientific precision" of God's words over the tenderness and lovingkindness of God's heart. We got so carried away with our knowledge of the word we forgot how to walk by the spirit. Walking by the spirit has little to do with knowing the exact meaning of heteros if there is such a thing. It has more to do with helping others, feeding the hungry, visiting the sick and widows in their affliction and helping those who need our help.
Sounds kinda like James 1:27 huh? Maybe there's a place in the Bible for that book after all.
Peace
Jerry
| Rafael Olmeda
(9/17/00 4:12:43 am)
| Re: Four Crucified: Allos vs. Heteros
hmmmm, the same Greek words can be used to describe different things, and that might mean James belongs in the Bible after all?
Dang, that argument sounds familiar.
Jerry, you're starting to frighten me.
Blame me. I'm with the media. Edited by: Rafael Olmeda 9/17/00 4:12:43 am
| JBarrax
(9/17/00 10:30:16 am)
| Re: Four Crucified: Allos vs. Heteros
Be afraid Rafael, be very afraid. lol
As I've explained on the index page of my James essay-which is no longer available-it's not logical for me to say Acts contradicts itself and that the contradictions in the Bible are not a major problem and then call for the removal of James because it contradicts Paul's epistles. It would be just as hypocritical as some of the stuff VP did in PFAL.
I still believe there was a lot of conflict between Paul and James, but can't justify calling for the expulsion of James on the grounds that it
doesn't fit.
By the way, does anyone have an explanation for the "apparent contradiction" between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9?
Peace
Jerry
| lilome
(9/17/00 8:44:39 pm)
| Linguistics of the Bible
Dear JBarrax,
thank you for starting these PFAL threads!
Concerning the precision or consistency of the Koine Greek, I guess it's like any other language: a living organism (then), in which the same thought could be expressed with different words, with hundreds of fine shades of meaning, and many words could be used interchangeably.
Remember, it was the lingua franca of the time, like English is today. Most people in the areas conquered by Alexander could speak it, but they were not native speakers, just like the apostles who wrote the books of the N.T. were not native speakers and, although God-inspired, I don't think their works were meant for linguistic analysis.
Check all the instances in the Bible were someone reads something from the Scriptures. Do you see any word study? Do you think they did any?
We lost sight of the forest by looking at the trees.
Also, concerning the KJV translators and their "inconsistency" in using many different English words for the same Greek word: not an inconsistency at all!
Anyone who has worked in translations will tell you that this has to be done, in order to render the precise meaning of the original text.
Else, you have a new text, which sounds artificial and "foreign" and may not even make sense.
The same with "taking the liberty to interpret" (I think Twosum complained about KJV translators doing that). Even when you translate something word for word, there are many instances where you either ask the writer for clarifications or, else, you just have to make a decision as to what s/he means.
To conclude, I believe it was a blessed moment in history when the Bible was translated into the people's languages and most everyone could read it for themselves. I believe that God would oversee this work.
I cannot imagine that going back to the original languages is a prerequisite for understanding the good news. How many of us can really do that?
Or should we go to the PhD Man of God to tell us what it says?*
Unfortunately I don't have any insight about the contradiction in Acts. That's O.K., though. I don't feel I have to have answers for everything and I do believe that at some point we'll know it all.
*In case you think that I am contradicting myself, let me explain that I grew up using the Koine Greek Bible. I still do. So, my observations in the previous posts were not the result of study, but of simply reading it
- you know, that anaginosko in Ephesians 3:4. (lol)
| Fremont
(9/17/00 9:57:53 pm)
| PFAL Review: Part 2
You've seem to have forgotten one very important point, if the Word does not interpret itself, there can be either no interpretation or there can be any interpretation. This means that everything you write is moot because my interpretation is just as right as your interpretation. Even so, if the prophecy was not "of one's own loosing" or, as rephrased in 2 Peter 1:21 "by the will of man," we must interpret it in that light. That is, the only proper interpretation is God's interpretation. He gave it, and He knows what it means. God does not change, so His word does not change. If men did not
interpret it when it was given to them, we do not interpret it now. The scripture interprets itself. Remember John 1:1, "the Word was God." This is simple logic. If the Word was God, and God interprets the Word, then the Word interprets itself. As for "Amen;" you must not have heard Dr.
Wierwille very much. He often said, "It's not what V.P. Wierwille
says, it's what the word says!" I know of several people who showed Dr.
Wierwille things he had not seen himself. One person reported to me that Dr. sat with her for hours. Dr. W. also changed some of his teaching over time. He used to teach the trinity and there was a cross on top of the BRC. He urged
people to research the scriptures to see of those things were so. If you disagreed with him you could write him and he would respond. He also began teaching "the believing of Jesus Christ" (see "Romans" as taught in the University of Life) as a further explanation of Bible Kinds of faith.
As for "Eli, Eli," there's a good reason why you see the Hebrew word sha'ar and not shbk.It's because you are using a concordance with a Hebrew text. If you looked in the Aramaic, you'd see shbk, but not in Psalms. It's in 2 Samuel 8:4. And if you review PFAL, you'd note that Dr. says that Jesus is not quoting from from Psalms 22:1, that is the error that has been compounded through the ages. As for lama vs lmna, you have to remember that Matthew 27:46 is an English transliteration of the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic. That is why there is "lama" instead of "lmna."
| Fremont
(9/17/00 10:25:32 pm)
| Re: Keys of interpretation
You've misunderstood both passages. In John 5:39, Jesus was telling the Jews, "You think in the scriptures you have eternal life and they testify of me. So how can you believe the scriptures and not
believe in me?" He was not criticizing them for thinking they could find eternal life in the scriptures, but pointing out their hypocrisy. The scriptures were about the Messiah, Jesus Christ, so they could not say that they believed in the scriptures and did not believe in Jesus Christ! He was the eternal life that was to be found in the scriptures. As for Spoudazo, "Endeavoring" might be a better interpretation. Bullinger says, "Be diligent." The emphasis is on how we show ourselves approved before God. We do that by "rightly dividing the word of truth." The KJV uses "study" to agree with "rightly dividing." The word "show" means to set or place, and "approve" is to try, as gold is tried in a furnace until all the impurities are burned out. However one wants to interpret spoudazo, the verse emphasizes that we need to make an effort.
| Rafael Olmeda
(9/17/00 10:34:02 pm)
| Re: PFAL Review: Part 2
Fremont,
As pointed out earlier in one of these threads, as well as in How to Enjoy the Bible, the verse in II Peter 1:21 has nothing to do with the meaning of scripture and everything to do with the origin of it. Using that verse to discuss the MEANING (ie, interpretation) of scripture is, therefore, invalid.
Blame me. I'm with the media. |
JBarrax
(9/17/00 11:03:11 pm)
|
Re: PFAL Review: Part 2
Fremont, thanks for posting. I am inclined to disagree with you on several points. VP did say, "It's the word and not what VP
Wierwille says'. Unfortunately the "Word" he presented was twisted, misrepresented and mangled to fit his preconceived idea of what he thought. If you haven't read Part One of this thread, I humbly ask that you take the time to do so and note the striking differences between what VP said and what the Bible said. His presentation of "The Word" was often nothing more than HIS interpretation. The teaching about David and Nathan is a good example of that.
Concerning II Peter 1:20, I say again, please read it in its context. The context explains that "private interpretation" refers to the source of our faith. VP knew this but he needed a scriptural
coat hanger upon which to hang his "don't think" doctrine. So he misused the term "private interpretation" and repeated it doggedly, forcing the twisted meaning into our collective consciousness like a mantra. I'd like to review the tape someday and count how many times he said "private interpretation" in that session. And each time he said it, it was wrong. Because we DO have the ability and the permission to interpret what God says.
I Corinthians 2:9-14
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
We are to compare spiritual things with spiritual, relying on the holy spirit within us to help us to understand the great spiritual truths of God's Word.
You say that either there's no interpretation possible or everyone has an interpretation. Let me ask you this. Do those who adhere to the principle that the Bible interprets itself all agree on that interpretation?
Of course not! So we are talking about a fairy tale here. The idea that the Bible interprets itself to us and that therefore all honest Bible students will agree on the Word is a romantic fallacy. How many factions are there just among those ex-twi groups who still adhere to this notion? Apparently the Bible doesn't interpret itself very clearly otherwise we wouldn't have so many people claiming the Bible interprets itself and STILL disagreeing on what it means!
And speaking of Dr. Wierwille's example, He himself did not adhere to the principle of the Word interpreting itself, nor did he teach the Corps so. If you can find a set of Way Corps principles tapes from about 1986, listen to what he said about Corps Principle Number One. The principle had become known as "Acquire an in-depth spiritual perception and awareness." VP said, as I recall, "...an in-depth spiritual perception and awareness of what? Frogs? No, the Word!" He went on to say that He had intended Corps Principle number one to mean that, when you read the Word, you know what it OUGHT to say, even if it says something else. I'm not kidding.
He taught the Corps that they should aspire to be able to read one thing and believe another. Is that the Bible interpreting itself or is that walking by the spirit a la I Corinthians 2:13? I'd say it's the latter. My point is,
Wierwille didn't live by the standards he espoused in PFAL. You can't do it, because, imho, it's not possible. They're unworkable.
'Nuff said.
Jerry |
|
