Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/12/2019 in all areas

  1. As for motives, since we have so much information on vpw's life and comments, we can trace a relatively clear path, at least in his own words. We know that vpw told the early corps that he considered business, music AND ministry before going into ministry. (Yes, looks like he got into all 3, I know.) So, going into ministry was a CAREER decision, not a calling. We know that he claimed that in his first 2 years in ministry, each of those years, he seriously considered giving up. So, going into ministry wasn't about CONVICTION, but about convenience. We know that he took "Homiletics" or preaching, as his area of study- not "Bible history" or anything rigorous- he picked probably the softest option. When he was into his second year as a preacher was when he first heard the idea that the Bible was the word of God and that he didn't believe it prior to that. (We don't know what he based the first year's sermons on, but it wasn't on the idea that the Bible was really special.) We also know that he inflated his credentials- like when he claimed he took ALL of Moody's correspondence courses, but according to their records, he never took ANY of their courses. (They have records of all completed courses, and there is NO record of him having turned in even one course.) We know that, around 1970 or shortly thereafter, vpw began claiming he heard from God Almighty back in 1942, in a promise that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. We know that, according to him, his first thought when he supposedly heard that was that EVERYONE WOULD LISTEN TO HIM if that was the case. We also know that he's cited snowstorms that didn't exist to punctuate events he later claimed were important. In 1953, he went to a convention where he met JE Stiles and learned from him, later plagiarizing the entire contents of Stiles' book on the Holy Spirit for his own publication. Of that day, he claimed the city was in a blizzard, and planes, trains AND buses were all out. (There wasn't even a single flake on the ground.) When confronted with this, he never claimed anyone was mistaken- instead he claimed that angels answered the phones at the bus depot, etc and lied to him each time. All of that says quite a bit about the man, and that's hardly everything.
    3 points
  2. Now you're getting into church politics. Probably leads to a rabbit hole that would be counterproductive here. However, like waysider suggested, perhaps you could clarify/expound on that first sentence. Given generally accepted definitions of sodomy, why would you be concerned about what goes on in private/behind closed doors for a married couple? And how is that a "matter of [your] faith? "These guys at the Vatican...", I assume are not robots. They have hormones coursing through their bodies just like anyone else. Hormones are generally more powerful than "commitments" made without understanding said hormones. Also, it occurred to me when reading the article Socks linked, that the possibility exists that adopting the practice of celebrex... er, celibacy may have had an economic factor. As we know (in not nearly enough detail), the RC church is mega rich. Nevertheless, the underlying social sickness that has been exposed in the last 50 years can easily be traced to "the discipline." IT is unnatural, perhaps even more so than sodomy, IMO.
    1 point
  3. This is a baffling statement. Can you expound a bit more?
    1 point
  4. I've said it before and I'll say it again: "I'm glad I got in, and I'm glad I got out." I'm not aware of anyone whose story had NOTHING but negatives, but some people certainly feel that way after suffering quite a bit in twi. I think vpw had ulterior motives when he DID speak the truth, but it was spoken nevertheless. He benefited people almost accidentally- and partly to bait the hook with some food. I won't say there was NO benefits in the process.
    1 point
  5. IDK. I think applause at the end is thankfulness...that it's finally over.
    1 point
  6. Twinky, I think that's excellent advice and insight. Over the years I've seen both in myself and others that when it comes to the Bible we kinda bring who we are "to it" when we read. And it's that way with anything we do, isn't it? I do think, without being "elitist" about it, that we'd all benefit from what you're saying and so much misunderstanding comes from just not knowing or following simple stuff. Plus, everyone may sit that and read and listen and nod and say "amen" at the right times but two people can have very different understandings of what they're hearing and reading and just as certainly different applications of the "same thing" into our individual lives. I've been studying Bullinger's scope of scripture again, the structure stuff. I always enjoyed it and it's an area that PFAL didn't get into much but that fits with reading for context. Structure really highlights the literary side of the Bible, as a written book. The ups and downs, the flows, and how it follows and fits with the language itself. The repetition of an idea and how it's contrasted, how it's expressed throughout a chapter, a "book" and then across the entire Bible. I see it revealing meaning and emphasis without adding much need for interpretation or interpolation. And it's something that doesn't seem lost between languages, Greek, Aramaic, English. It follows the content, the ideas, and exposes the essence of the meaning of what's written just by reading it. I'm working on an old project with it, the similarity to music and various musical forms. We know music is written and follows a wide range of rules and reg's, depending on the type, etc. I'm not an expert in all of them by any means, but the fundamentals are pretty easy to understand even if you just listen to music and know what you like. Musicians of all stripe have always used improvisation and very effectively for compositions where the core of the score is written, say a melody or even an idea, and the actual notes then played may vary in performance. Mozart used improvisation in his composing, and sometimes would draw from initial sketches he'd either write out or have in his head when he performed those pieces. This is done all the time in music when someone takes a piece of music and produces different versions of it, "improvises" in it. Achieving different end results while using the same harmonic structures is done all the time, as well as using different harmonic structures against a melody.....it's "different" but it's a product of the melody or even a re working of the melody itself that fits into the original composition in it's entirety. The Bible does some of the same things, which makes sense really - both are written forms of communication that have a living expression to be heard and seen. So it follows that they'd be similar. * I meant to add - I think that's how the "truth" of "God's Word" is mean to be lived in each individual life. People get really hung up on the nuances and every little detail being exactly this or that, in the human rendering of what we learn about in the Bible and are given by God. It's like saying, if we were dancing everyone would have to do the same routine, the same steps and move the same way as each other at the same time. Regimented, coordinated, controlled. Planned. Expected. Repetitive. (Boring?) I believe it all gets lived out in a much broader, grander scale of activity, where the basics are rendered in a diversity of ways that is vast in number, as each of us individually renders out "the living Word", the "logos" - which is how the Bible describes the way the spirit of God works in each of us in the "Body of Christ"...."members in particular".... We contain the vast glory of God when we insist on regimentation, and we constrain the ability of each of us to naturally/spiritually produce a living performance of God's Word when we do. So on the one hand we adhere to the rules and regs....and on the other we then produce our works, our "fruit" which then has the qualities of joy, peace, etc. that the Bible takes about, "fruit of the spirit", not just feel good stuff but real stuff. Thinking of it like music, and performance, and improvisation, it comes to life for me.
    1 point
  7. Etymology (= where it comes from, how it's built up) of the word Mortify: late 14c., mortifien, "to kill, destroy the life of," from Old French mortefiier "destroy, overwhelm, punish," from Late Latin mortificare "cause death, kill, put to death," literally "make dead," from mortificus "producing death," from Latin mors (genitive mortis) "death" (from PIE root *mer- "to rub away, harm," also "to die" and forming words referring to death and to beings subject to death) + combining form of facere "to make, to do" (from PIE root *dhe- "to set, put"). Religious sense of "subdue the flesh by abstinence and discipline" is attested from early 15c. Sense of "humiliate, chagrin, vex" is recorded by 1690s (compare mortification). Related: Mortified; mortifying. Note the "root words" Mer- and Dhe- or Facere, and how these have developed and compounded to make one word over millennia; there are quite a number of steps to get to the word we use today. (See, you can do word studies in English, too!). The kids' word "deadify" sums up "mortify" exactly. If you'd known that the "mort" or "mer" part meant, or had connotations of, Death, you'd've understood this right from the beginning. Perhaps you did, but chose to accept someone else's explanation (more fool you!). If you know any French, you'll recognise the word "mort" meaning dead. Or if you know any Spanish, you'll recognise the word "muerto" meaning dead. French and Spanish are more directly from Latin than English is, so these are also worthwhile languages to study (along with "improve your English"). If you find a new word in the English language, it's always worthwhile checking its etymology and this will definitely help you expand your vocabulary. You will see one, two or maybe more "root words" (as above) and you will then begin to be able to recognise these "roots" in other words. If you aren't willing to put this effort into understanding your native tongue - don't waste anybody's time showing off your puffed-up ego in expounding on ancient Greek words.
    1 point
  8. Good article; thanks for posting. See the recommendations for looking at several English versions (or if you're a non-native English speaker, perhaps in your mother tongue instead or as well). I'd like to suggest that people UNDERSTAND ENGLISH WELL. That means: having a good vocabulary - the wider your vocabulary, the more you will pick up nuances. Have a good understanding of grammar - the more you understand that, the better will be your understanding of the "actual" and the hypothetical, How many tenses in English do you know the names of, for describing past events? Or describing future events? (Hint: there's more than one of each!) What about the subjunctive? It was perfectly obvious to me right from sess.1 of PFAL that VPW didn't understand English grammar - I "forgave" him that, thinking that the entirety of the video teaching was perhaps more important to understand. But I later heard those same mistakes made by purported "teachers" and ultimately at twig level. I say: if you don't understand your native language, your mother tongue, and its nuances - how the heck do you think you understand a foreign language, and an ancient one at that, with all its nuances? Think of the differences in meaning between "I walk down the street" and "I am walking down the street." "I walked down the street" compared with "I have walked down the street" and "I was walking down the street" "I will walk down the street" and "I shall walk down the street" and "I will be walking down the street" and "I shall be walking down the street." "I may walk down the street" and "I may be walking down the street." "I may have been walking down the street" and "I could have been walking down the street." These are all legitimate tenses, some mean more or less the same depending on context, but others have big differences in meaning. You probably understand the differences without being able to articulate them clearly. You may know the names of some of the tenses, or you may not. The choice of auxiliary verb can make a big difference too. There are many other tenses in the English language. Other languages have different tenses that are not directly equivalent to those of the English language. That's before we get into things like word order, and different moods - are the words you read meant to be taken at face value, are they ironical or humorous, do they in fact mean the opposite of what they say? And spelling. And words that have more than one meaning in English, of which there are several examples in the Bible. And words that look a lot like another, but are widely divergent in meaning ("false friends," these are sometimes called). Seriously, folks, improve your knowledge of English and you will improve your understanding of not just the Bible but a whole host of other things as well. Those scholars and academicians who have worked on Bible translations have a wide vocabulary and a wide understanding of grammar in English and the other language(s). That's why they were chosen for the task. Undoubtedly there were disagreements, or at least discussions, over the choice of English words or phrases to express Greek words or phrases, according to the translators' own vocabularies and understandings. You can best respect their efforts by improving your own ability to comprehend.
    1 point
  9. Context is a significant part of PFAL - how the Word interprets itself. Immediate, extended context, etc. History, geography and culture provide contexts in which to understand the Bible, and that was prominent in PFAL. One of the biggest takeaways from PFAL for me was to read the Bible. I'm looking at my 1970 hard bound copy of Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible" right now and it contains a huge amount of information and guidance for anyone wishing to begin layering their reading and study skills. I recommend it to ex Wayfers when we're talking about this and that if I find they haven't ever read it or dove into it. The connection between Ethelbert and VPW will be obvious to PFAL grads who learned much of the same material in PFAL as a means to understanding Christian faith as a living reality. It's interesting to me that the academic approach of EWB was first used then dropped by VPW for his own rhetorical style of teaching PFAL. I think we must accept that fact that when working with a written form of communication that is first constructed from ancient samples written in an ancient language that must then be translated through several layers of refinement to get a modern version, the outcome must be an interpretation. When anyone says that a translation is accurate to the original and "according to usage" as VPW said, interpretation is required. Yes yes yes, let's let the Word of God speak for itself. Once we construct a complete sample that we believe represents the best possible record and translate it into English, a language made up of many many other languages, the result will require interpretation. The net results can look like the unwieldy statements of an Amplified NT, not due to an over wrought torturing of the content but because it may require many english words to specify anything close to an exact translation of the Koine Greek words. "As the spirit guides" indeed, but where words can be vague, the heart gets the impression of the message clearly. Thus, the "spirit" teaches us, as we read and study. How well VPW or anyone else uses any of these tools is a measure to be discussed but where I see that article putting a person is to crack the book, allow others to guide and help you learn and don't go the "sophomore's shuffle" route just because we have some tools to use, whether we're newbies or elders. Stay meek, read, and enjoy. Article quote: "I’m not saying that Greek word studies are bad, or totally unnecessary (after all, we are not native Greek speakers). But unless you do them properly, they’ll simply give you the illusion of knowing something when you really don’t. Most of the time you’ll do better to simply compare a number of solid translations like the NASB, ESV, NIV, and NLT. After all, the people who translated these Bible versions understand Greek far better than you or I ever will. So don’t throw away their expertise. And as you read, pay attention to the context. An ounce of good contextual analysis is worth a pound of poorly done Greek word studies. (I'd add don't rely solely on a single teacher or source either, over the long haul. I do have some basic fundamentals that I feel solid about and I can move amongst many different sources without fearing anything at all. After all, if I ask God for Him to teach me, is He going to fool me and lie to me? Of course not. So there's every reason for trust and confidence - it''s HIS Word, not mine.) "So take your English Bibles and read carefully. When you do word studies, avoid the root fallacy, take advantage of scholars’ expertise, and remember that context is king. In short, read, reread, and reread again. It’s not as flashy a study method, and it probably won’t make you feel (or look) as smart, but it’ll give you much more accurate results." (Actually by reading and working context, you'll probably look very smart because you'll know what's in the Book, and not just lists of verses organized by topic, in your head. Few are those who say they "believe the book" who have ever read it in it's entirety. Not reading it all and saying I believe it would say something about how I believe. It. The book thing......It's worthwhile to do so, I highly recommend it, taking one's time, "no worries mate", just enjoy the ride. )
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...