Leaderboard

VPW's statement that the Bible interprets itself is nonsense. The act of interpretation of any text is done by the reader of the text. People interpret what they read. They are the ones who give it meaning. Surely we can see that this is a basic reason for many different denominations. They have different interpretations of Scripture. People interpret books and make decisions about what the books mean based on lots of factors, such as the times in which the book was written. We're talking about reading literature here. I'll say the obvious: Bibles are collections of pieces of literature. BTW, some Bibles have different pieces of literature in them compared with other Bibles. People who understand what literature is and who were not brainwashed by Wierwille, realize that books don't "interpret themselves." People interpret books. But because many of us who were vulnerable PFAL students and considered VPW as some great Biblical scholar, when he said that nonsense, many of us believed it. BTW, he's not the only Bible teacher who passes along that thoughtless statement. In Undertow I show my experience in realizing that books don't interpret themselves, people interpret books. I highlighted that point mainly for readers who were indoctrinated in The Way. Readers who never bought into Wierwille's propaganda know that already.

Maybe it was the pennies.

Lamsa wrote it that way. Lamsa was wrong. It's only considered like that among the "Aramaic primacy" fringe element out there. vpw's adoption of "Aramaic primacy" solely on the basis of being exotic and new and fringe was independent of the truth. After thousands of hours of work, the twi research team, sweating over Aramaic texts, ended up with different results than Lamsa. Under "Aramaic primacy", that's not supposed to happen. "Aramaic primacy" is error.

I haven't been following this thread but had a peek. This whole thread is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the canon of scripture. But I did note the following, originally posted by our great scholar Mike. This is the cover to the book that many of us may have purchased. Can I invite you to look at the name of the translator at the bottom of the photo. How is the name spelled? Yep, that's right. LAMSA. Not "Llamsa" (like a llama, perhaps, but not as cute). I always had suspicions about VPW because he paid no attention to the obvious. He made basic and idiotic mistakes, about English, about grammar, about many things. He did this not once or twice, but consistently. And what that causes me to think is: If this person makes such a big mistake about what's very, very obvious - what sort of mistakes is that same person making with less obvious matters? Luke 16:10 (NIV) “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. You could read "sloppy" or "careless" (etc) instead of "dishonest." You get the point. Overlook the obvious => overlook the less obvious, the hidden, the harder to understand parts. Spelling and grammar errors (for example) are easily picked up on and corrected (heard of spell-checker, anyone? Hint: it's not just for Halloween). Once or twice: forgivable. Consistently: shows ignorance (lack of education) and no desire to be better educated; or lack of regard for the subject matter, and for their audience. And relating that back to this thread, where I see someone overlooking the very, very obvious when posting, I find myself again wondering what sort of mistakes is that same person making with less obvious matters?

That's the thing. It's an instance of someone needing to malign people in the Bible- all to claim they were all weak and venal- so that vpw could be said to fit in their company. Finding the need to libel people in the Bible just to try to give vpw a free pass is remarkable, and happened here, as you can all see. It's also wildly dishonest, but honesty is of lesser importance to cleaning up vpw's image.

If you're skimming when looking for him, and you come across a youth mentioning the Army, slow down and go back a page or so- that was JT.

vpw's entire premise of the Bible interpreting itself was based on a False Dilemma- that there were exactly 2 possibilities AND NO MORE- 1) the Bible had no interpretation 2) the Bible interpreted ITSELF Surely, EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN RIGHT, no "private' interpretation would have meant there was a "PUBLIC" interpretation. (That bugged me a long time ago.) All of that's academic- since vpw was wrong about what that meant. Since he used the archaic KJV's wording, he was able to twist things to sound like they meant what he wanted- even if the Greek was completely different or the Hebrew was. In this case, as GSC regulars know, the verses were talking about HOW WE GOT THE SCRIPTURES, their ORIGIN. They said NOTHING about how we are to approach them. The word "interpretation" was an awful translation- which is obvious when vpw claims that "private interpretation" is "one's own letting-loose like you let loose the dogs on a hunt." There was nothing about "interpreting" in vpw's colorful digression into dogs on a hunt.

It's fascinating how many Bibles Lamsa sold, all to pfal grads who wanted to show other people ONE VERSE in Lamsa's Bible....... a verse that was later shown to be WRONG by twi's own research department! A lot of people thought twi used Lamsa's instead of the KJV. No, but they sure made up most of the sales of that book....

Thank you for confirming that even you consider the instructions accompanying the class to have been vpw's instructions. We've previously brought up that we were told immediately to read "Christians Should Be Prosperous" once that book was added to the pfal curriculum, and we were told- different people in different parts of the country in different decades- to spend several months reading nothing but pfal books. Those instructions weren't part of the taped class because those books didn't EXIST when the tapes were taped. But vpw gave the orders, and that's how it was. As we all knew and now you've confirmed you know.

Mike, you characterized John the Baptizer as "a weirdo." When asked why, you responded with this- which does NOTHING to actually address the question. What's your criteria for classifying John the Baptizer as "a weirdo"? As for my sister, she could use interaction with someone as moral as John. He, if he were alive and working on his ministry now, would have no time for dating. So, why'd you call John the Baptizer "a weirdo", then duck the question when asked why, Mike?

It's backwards logic. Most of us start with premises which lead to a conclusion: a + b = c. However, with backward logic, you start with the conclusion, then go searching for the premises to support it.

It’s so gratifying to get a direct answer to a direct question.

There's another poster here who is more qualified than many to offer an opinion on that if they desire to do so...or not

What was it about VPW that made us want to emulate him? Maybe that's really the greatest mystery in the world today.

"There's hamburger all over the highway in Mystic, Connecticut."

Since we’re talking hypotheticals and the dead - I should probably be more concerned if my sister was in the way corps and was responsible for seeing to the needs of the president and founder when he visits the campus.

If I said he was a Wierwille clone it would sound like I was trying to be disparaging, but, I mean it in a more literal sense. He imitated the mannerisms and speech patterns of VPW in a rather extreme way when he taught. To be fair, a lot of us picked up little bits of Wierwille's idiosyncrasies unconsciously. We sometimes put more emphasis on theatrics than content . JT went to the extreme and tried to pull off that "aww, shucks" kind of image. I'm just stating the obvious here. It's embarrassing now to admit but, if we're honest, a lot of us had a tendency to do it, at least to some degree. My first branch leader, on the other hand, was a very straight shooting guy with a rather stoic, academic approach, who was focused on content and relevance. The contrast was stark. Just another red flag I willingly chose to ignore.

36. They teach the unforgivable sin is accepting Satan as lord. In practice the unforgivable sin is questioning the direction of leadership.

I had the same exact experience only totally different....

I think also of Johnny Townsend's propaganda claiming he was a simple man who believed simple (gobbledygook). Life is complicated. Ancient cultures and just having one guy to translate "orientalisms" and everything will be just fine... is total BS.

I would be uncomfortable if my sister were dating any dead man.

I don't think he has to worry about health care coverage anymore.

By far the BIGGEST SIMILIARITY I see - and certainly cause for alarm - with wierwille/PFAL and Smith/Book of Mormon is the fact that followers of either one of these cults regard their central religious texts (either PFAL or the Book of Mormon) as divinely inspired and equate them as being on par with the same authority as how mainstream Christianity view The Bible . . A minor difference can be noted in that wierwille claimed he heard the voice of God saying He would teach wierwille the Word like it had not been known since the 1st century. Whereas Smith claimed an angel named Maroni appeared to him and said that a collection of ancient writings was buried in a nearby hill in present-day Wayne County, New York, engraved on golden plates by ancient prophets. Perhaps another minor difference can be observed in wierwille’s thinly disguised plagiarized material compared to the more creative and some of the unusual historical narratives of the Book of Mormon.