I had a twig leader years ago who used to say "if you squeeze the Greek too hard you might end up ' all wet'."I suppose today such a statement would warrant an M&A. Lambano, laballo, ballo, throw, throw the guy out! Best twig leader I ever had. He didn't know too much Greek but he and his wife had/have a deep understanding of GOD's love,grace,and mercy and it was evidenced by the life they live.
I don't disagree with you, waysider, but we're not talking about the same thing.
There's definitely a case to be made that TWI, and biblical literalists in general, spend too much time straining over gnats, and too little time just loving God & people.
What I'm talking about is that in the context of believing that "all things that pertain to life and godliness" can be discovered by careful study of the bible, TWI did a shoddy job of honest research, and that we who were in TWI often took shortcuts, falling back on things that we had heard in PFAL in lieu of doing the research ourselves.
Wierwille promoted PFAL as a class that would teach us the keys to reading and understanding the bible, and some of those keys were indeed taught, but much was simply spoon-fed to us.
How many of us, when "researching" a concept for ourselves, simply checked to make sure that the verses that Wierwille quoted were actually there, or that a certain Greek word was what he said it was, but never dug to ascertain if the meaning that he applied to the verses were correct, or if the definition that he assigned to a word was accurate?
Oakspear--------Your point is well taken and I find myself in agreement. Most of us in the earlier days had no concept of what biblical research is or ,for that matter, that it even existed. We blindly accepted because it was presented with such a great air of authority and certainty. It was atime when many wanted to believe in something or perhaps I should say any thing that would make some sense of the turbulant times we were in. It was a bit like being in love for the very first time. Maybe that is what is meant by "love is blind".
I am thinking back to my time in Twi as a Wc twig coordinator.
On the one hand I made it my mission to really look at each word that was assigned a "literal according to usage." I tried to see how those supposedly more accurate definitions had any traction. Many, many times I made some note to the effect of "I see something different than vpw."
Then there's the shameful "flip-side"- I was one of those people that taught that we should read the Word through PFAL-colored glasses.
I hope that those folks find it in their hearts to forgive me.......
"…This got me thinking about how many times in PFAL and later classes our research was based on assumptions and definitions that could not really be supported. I see it often enough that I question whether many who say that they have "researched" for themselves the information in PFAL have done more than re-read the "research" that Wierwille did…"
One of the first Greek words I did some further study on after leaving TWI is pros. VPW in his teaching on John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [pros] God…" defined pros as "together with yet distinctly independent of." VPW argued that the verse did NOT imply Jesus Christ was there with God in the beginning because of the word pros. He said the only way that Jesus could have been there in the beginning is in God's foreknowledge, or as he also put it – in the mind of God. What bugged me about VPW's definition and argument was that they didn't agree. If Christ existed in God's foreknowledge only – in the mind of God – then how could that be together with yet distinctly INDEPENDENT of God? If Christ was just a thought of God – how could that be SEPERATE from God? When a man or woman thinks about and plans to have children – do those thoughts exist apart from the mind that thought them? This hit me as somewhat puzzling and so I delved into finding out more about pros.
I think VPW got his pros definition from A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek Testament by E.W. Bullinger. On page 888 [i've put the part VPW used in bold red], "With, usage 5.c., pros: with Accusative, towards, implying an object, up to, with a view to, as an object attained; then, with, but as distinct from, over against, in direction towards; not like para [along with] but directed towards, implying intimate and closest inter-communion, together with distinct independence." It appears that VPW decided to only use one portion of the definition – why that one phrase I don't know – maybe he thought it was the only part that would lend itself to his special tweaking. I think he had a real knack for Scriptural and linguistic origami – twisting and folding verses and words to form his own unique brand of theology, something to suit his viewpoint. Considering the FULL definition of pros in Bullinger's it appears to me that John 1:1 implies Christ was literally WITH God in the beginning.
One of the first commentary sets I bought after leaving TWI was The Expositor's Greek Testament edited by W. Robertson Nicholl. From Volume One, page 684, discussing this same verse and Greek word [John 1:1pros] comes the following: "…pros implies not merely existence alongside of but personal intercourse. It means more than meta or para, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another…This preposition implies intercourse and therefore separate personality…" A few other places where pros is used: Mark 6:3 "…are not his sisters here with [pros] us?" Mark 9:19 "…how long shall I be with [pros] you?" Galatians 1:18 "…and abode with [pros] him fifteen days."
Maybe VPW's research was put together with assumptions yet distinctly independent of support.
I did my own research - but then that is my nature. Hello, my name is Abigail and I am a geek.
I came across a number of things that contradicted what I was taught in TWI. And there were other things that TWI taught that just plain didn't sit right in my heart. Where I blew it, was that I thought I was stupid. I didn't trust myself or believe in myself. So, when I came across things that contradicted what was taught, I assumed it was somehow an "error in my own understanding" and that those in TWI were correct.
It wasn't after I discovered that LCM's one time affair wasn't a one time affair that I began questioning and doubting what I had been taught and began trusting what I was seeing for myself.
"Maybe VPW's research was put TOGETHER WITH assumptions yet DISTINCTLY INDEPENDENT OF support."------------I love it!------Hey! doesn't DISTINCTLY rhyme with SUCCINCTLY? Isn't there a figure of speech that says if two words both end in "inctly" they become as one? I think it's called "inctlydinctly" but my Greek is a bit rusty.---
Are there Greek prepositions that mean "together with, yet really identical to"? A special preposition that is to be used when talking about triune beings? Doubt it. Then why emphasize "distinctly independent"?
Because it helped him make his point.
And we all oohed and aahed about the "acracy" (sic) of the Word. And how many folks, when "researching" John 1:1-2 have the definition for pros pop into their heads, confirming the non-Trinitarian nature of the verse, without really digging into it?
Are there Greek prepositions that mean "together with, yet really identical to"? A special preposition that is to be used when talking about triune beings? Doubt it. Then why emphasize "distinctly independent"?
Because it helped him make his point.
And we all oohed and aahed about the "acracy" (sic) of the Word. And how many folks, when "researching" John 1:1-2 have the definition for pros pop into their heads, confirming the non-Trinitarian nature of the verse, without really digging into it?
Because his entire Arian heresy hangs on that one preposition.
And we all oohed and aahed about the "acracy" (sic) of the Word. And how many folks, when "researching" John 1:1-2 have the definition for pros pop into their heads, confirming the non-Trinitarian nature of the verse, without really digging into it?
I learned early on that the word pros may also be used in a trinitarian way, so for me, it wasn't a big deal.
I once had a conversation with a trinitarian who said that meant God and Jesus were "with" each other in the beginning, but different forms/elements, like the trinitarian argument of the same substance yet different forms, like of water, ice and steam.
They were together, yet distinctly independent of each other...
And so my (Wierwille's) definition was interpreted in a trinitarian way as well.
Imean no disrespect to anyone by this but one conversation with a member of a group can simply not be expected to represent the entire group. I once had a conversation with a Catholic who was convinced the Pope was an acid head (lsd user). Did that make it true? Early on in the indoctrination process it was made very clear that "Thou shalt have no other GODS before me " meant it was not within TWI thinking to accept the trinity as one seperate entity. Chapter and verse? "JCING" is too long to quote here. Maybe this aspect calls for avisit to the archives where it has already been discussed.
I have NEVER understood what the heck was in the punch when someone decided
Romans 12:1
"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."
that the word "reasonable" in Romans 12:1, which is the Greek word
"logikos", meaning "logical" most obviously,
should always be given as "RELIGIOUS",
as in
"which is your RELIGIOUS service."
That was in the Intermediate (E@rl Burt0n) and Renewed Mind (Walter C) classes,
and I have no idea WHY.
I do know it was OFFICIAL, since it was being taught in the taped classes
for MULTIPLE classes, and vpw signed off on both, introducing the Intermediate.
How often, when checking a Greek word, does the definition that you learned in PFAL pop into your head, even if there is no basis for that definition? Or when reading a passage of scripture does Wierwille's undocumented "orientalism" come to mind?
Worse than that, Oak, in everyday conversation or a really good discussion with some friends gets going and - wham! - they say something that really cranks me up and, halfway through whatever I'm saying, I realize I'm parrotting TWI or using something I learned there as a basis for my argument.
I have to then backtrack. I've gotten better at noticing it, but it's still there. I've started saying, "some people believe..." or "some churches teach...." no matter what topic I'm on - that way I'm neither condoning it or saying that it's correct. THEN I can determine/decide if it's something I subscribe to or if I'm giving knee-jerk responses.
Maybe not the best way to deal with those PFAL-Colored Glasses, but it's the best I've come up with so far.
Imean no disrespect to anyone by this but one conversation with a member of a group can simply not be expected to represent the entire group. I once had a conversation with a Catholic who was convinced the Pope was an acid head (lsd user). Did that make it true? Early on in the indoctrination process it was made very clear that "Thou shalt have no other GODS before me " meant it was not within TWI thinking to accept the trinity as one seperate entity. Chapter and verse? "JCING" is too long to quote here. Maybe this aspect calls for avisit to the archives where it has already been discussed.
My purpose in starting this thread was not to re-hash the trinity or spend pages & pages on any one doctrine, but to point out how, right or wrong, TWI doctrines were poorly researched, and that many, if not most, of us wayfers accepted definitions and interpretations with little or no explanation.
One of my favorites is when Wierwille talks about "the Lord's Brethren". He dismisses the idea that Jesus' brothers and sisters are Joseph's kids from a previous marriage because "that would invalidate Jesus' claim to the Davidic throne". The only problem with that reasoning is that Wierwille in another study identifies Mary's geneology in Matthew as the "royal" one, so any children Joseph may have had from another wife are irrelevant. Turns out that Wierwille is just parroting Bullinger, who makes the claim in the Companion Bible appendixes. The difference is that Bullinger had a different opinion about the geneologies than did Wierwille. Few questioned the inconsistancy.
What about the claim that "in the original", the first word of Genesis is "God"? Forget about Wierwille already saying that "there are no originals". Pick a language that you think is "original", and look at the first word: in Hebrew (the most likely claim for an "original" language) it's bereshyth, translated as "in the beginning, elohim is the third word. Even in Aramaic it's the same word order. Anybody ever check that one?
The bottom line is that Wierwille's heterodox doctrines were dependent upon the shoddy work that either he did or that he lifted off of somebody else. The constant twisting (and mangling) of Greek and Hebrew etymology was the pseudo-scientific mechanism that allowed for this mangling.
An interesting sidebar question to this would be: how many actual qualified/credentialed scripture scholars, theologians, etc., ever joined TWI? (i.e., those who were scholars prior to their initial encounter with TWI) [in fact, I think that this would be a good thing upon which to base a new thread]
lambano is one that I looked at kind of late in the game and couldn't find it to mean receive into manifestation. As far as I could tell it plainly meant to recieve or take what is given to you or to take away. For eg. in Matt it says "He takes (lambano) our infirmities and bares our sickness." There are many other examples with that one that just don't make sense as receive into manifestation.
That along with "filled to overflowing", which is what, pletho? We were taught this one along side lambano in relation to "manifesting." I was at a non-way Christian friend's house one day and picked up a book on the subject and the author explained how pletho in Greek literature was used many times in reference to a ship taking on water and being "overtaken" by it. I brought it up after a fellowship one time and the conversation was quickly silenced by the FC by asking me why I was reading books like these when I had all those twi books, mags, and tapes to read and listen to yada yada yada.
The pros definition never seemed to fit perfectly for me either.
The bottom line is that Wierwille's heterodox doctrines were dependent upon the shoddy work that either he did or that he lifted off of somebody else. The constant twisting (and mangling) of Greek and Hebrew etymology was the pseudo-scientific mechanism that allowed for this mangling.
Bingo! And once one of these questionable doctrines was established, others could be built upon it.
My earlier post was as clear as mud. I apologize.I was neither condoning nor condeming trinitarian theology. I was merely trying to convey that TWI was very clear on how they felt about the trinity. When I cited " Jesus Christ Is Not GOD" as a reference I meant it was a reference of TWI beliefs to be used to demonstrate TWI beliefs not necessarily an end all reference source of information regarding the trinity. Hence, it illustrates looking at one tenet, in this example the trinity, through PFAL (TWI) colored glasses.This is not a judgement of the actual book itself.
The bottom line is that Wierwille's heterodox doctrines were dependent upon the shoddy work that either he did or that he lifted off of somebody else. The constant twisting (and mangling) of Greek and Hebrew etymology was the pseudo-scientific mechanism that allowed for this mangling.
An interesting sidebar question to this would be: how many actual qualified/credentialed scripture scholars, theologians, etc., ever joined TWI? (i.e., those who were scholars prior to their initial encounter with TWI) [in fact, I think that this would be a good thing upon which to base a new thread]
From the thread I started up in "About the Way:"
There is no possible way to become an "eminent scholar" while still IN TWI, because to be eminent is to be recognized publicly for your work in a very positive way by those who are already expert in the field, and to do so, you must have academic freedom. TWI was never a legitimate expert in any field, and has never been known for its academic freedom.
Those PFAL-colored glasses would act as a huge inhibitor that limited anybody's ability to do true scholarly work.
Hope this isn’t off topic – after thinking more about Oakspear’s term “PFAL-colored glasses” and Markomalley saying those glasses would act as a huge inhibitor to someone doing true scholarly work – I remembered something. I knew a technician who was color-blind – he could not distinguish between the colors red and green – which would be a problem for someone assembling/installing electronic systems using multi-colored wires [which was his job]. It wasn’t for him – he carried a red-colored lens – and he showed me how it worked. He held up the red and green jacketed wires . When he held the red-colored lens in front of the pair - - the red colored wire disappeared! So, the wire he could see was the green colored one…Perhaps the technician’s red lens hiding trick is analogous to the way TWI’s skewed interpretation of the Bible affects its followers – it can render certain things virtually invisible!
No one is perfect. All reasoning is done from a viewpoint. I think it’s important to be aware of our own limitations, occasionally re-examining our own viewpoint – as well as seeking out other viewpoints – and strive to be fair-minded in evaluating all points of view.
Recommended Posts
markomalley
Very good point Oaks...very good point.
Suppose the evangelicals (and TWI as an offshoot in the context you've mentioned) have the actual meaning totally perverted?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I had a twig leader years ago who used to say "if you squeeze the Greek too hard you might end up ' all wet'."I suppose today such a statement would warrant an M&A. Lambano, laballo, ballo, throw, throw the guy out! Best twig leader I ever had. He didn't know too much Greek but he and his wife had/have a deep understanding of GOD's love,grace,and mercy and it was evidenced by the life they live.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I don't disagree with you, waysider, but we're not talking about the same thing.
There's definitely a case to be made that TWI, and biblical literalists in general, spend too much time straining over gnats, and too little time just loving God & people.
What I'm talking about is that in the context of believing that "all things that pertain to life and godliness" can be discovered by careful study of the bible, TWI did a shoddy job of honest research, and that we who were in TWI often took shortcuts, falling back on things that we had heard in PFAL in lieu of doing the research ourselves.
Wierwille promoted PFAL as a class that would teach us the keys to reading and understanding the bible, and some of those keys were indeed taught, but much was simply spoon-fed to us.
How many of us, when "researching" a concept for ourselves, simply checked to make sure that the verses that Wierwille quoted were actually there, or that a certain Greek word was what he said it was, but never dug to ascertain if the meaning that he applied to the verses were correct, or if the definition that he assigned to a word was accurate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Oakspear--------Your point is well taken and I find myself in agreement. Most of us in the earlier days had no concept of what biblical research is or ,for that matter, that it even existed. We blindly accepted because it was presented with such a great air of authority and certainty. It was atime when many wanted to believe in something or perhaps I should say any thing that would make some sense of the turbulant times we were in. It was a bit like being in love for the very first time. Maybe that is what is meant by "love is blind".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I am thinking back to my time in Twi as a Wc twig coordinator.
On the one hand I made it my mission to really look at each word that was assigned a "literal according to usage." I tried to see how those supposedly more accurate definitions had any traction. Many, many times I made some note to the effect of "I see something different than vpw."
Then there's the shameful "flip-side"- I was one of those people that taught that we should read the Word through PFAL-colored glasses.
I hope that those folks find it in their hearts to forgive me.......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
One of the first Greek words I did some further study on after leaving TWI is pros. VPW in his teaching on John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [pros] God…" defined pros as "together with yet distinctly independent of." VPW argued that the verse did NOT imply Jesus Christ was there with God in the beginning because of the word pros. He said the only way that Jesus could have been there in the beginning is in God's foreknowledge, or as he also put it – in the mind of God. What bugged me about VPW's definition and argument was that they didn't agree. If Christ existed in God's foreknowledge only – in the mind of God – then how could that be together with yet distinctly INDEPENDENT of God? If Christ was just a thought of God – how could that be SEPERATE from God? When a man or woman thinks about and plans to have children – do those thoughts exist apart from the mind that thought them? This hit me as somewhat puzzling and so I delved into finding out more about pros.
I think VPW got his pros definition from A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek Testament by E.W. Bullinger. On page 888 [i've put the part VPW used in bold red], "With, usage 5.c., pros: with Accusative, towards, implying an object, up to, with a view to, as an object attained; then, with, but as distinct from, over against, in direction towards; not like para [along with] but directed towards, implying intimate and closest inter-communion, together with distinct independence." It appears that VPW decided to only use one portion of the definition – why that one phrase I don't know – maybe he thought it was the only part that would lend itself to his special tweaking. I think he had a real knack for Scriptural and linguistic origami – twisting and folding verses and words to form his own unique brand of theology, something to suit his viewpoint. Considering the FULL definition of pros in Bullinger's it appears to me that John 1:1 implies Christ was literally WITH God in the beginning.
One of the first commentary sets I bought after leaving TWI was The Expositor's Greek Testament edited by W. Robertson Nicholl. From Volume One, page 684, discussing this same verse and Greek word [John 1:1 pros] comes the following: "…pros implies not merely existence alongside of but personal intercourse. It means more than meta or para, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another…This preposition implies intercourse and therefore separate personality…" A few other places where pros is used: Mark 6:3 "…are not his sisters here with [pros] us?" Mark 9:19 "…how long shall I be with [pros] you?" Galatians 1:18 "…and abode with [pros] him fifteen days."
Maybe VPW's research was put together with assumptions yet distinctly independent of support.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I did my own research - but then that is my nature. Hello, my name is Abigail and I am a geek.
I came across a number of things that contradicted what I was taught in TWI. And there were other things that TWI taught that just plain didn't sit right in my heart. Where I blew it, was that I thought I was stupid. I didn't trust myself or believe in myself. So, when I came across things that contradicted what was taught, I assumed it was somehow an "error in my own understanding" and that those in TWI were correct.
It wasn't after I discovered that LCM's one time affair wasn't a one time affair that I began questioning and doubting what I had been taught and began trusting what I was seeing for myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Maybe VPW's research was put TOGETHER WITH assumptions yet DISTINCTLY INDEPENDENT OF support."------------I love it!------Hey! doesn't DISTINCTLY rhyme with SUCCINCTLY? Isn't there a figure of speech that says if two words both end in "inctly" they become as one? I think it's called "inctlydinctly" but my Greek is a bit rusty.---
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
"together with, yet distinctly independent from"
Are there Greek prepositions that mean "together with, yet really identical to"? A special preposition that is to be used when talking about triune beings? Doubt it. Then why emphasize "distinctly independent"?
Because it helped him make his point.
And we all oohed and aahed about the "acracy" (sic) of the Word. And how many folks, when "researching" John 1:1-2 have the definition for pros pop into their heads, confirming the non-Trinitarian nature of the verse, without really digging into it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Because his entire Arian heresy hangs on that one preposition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I learned early on that the word pros may also be used in a trinitarian way, so for me, it wasn't a big deal.
I once had a conversation with a trinitarian who said that meant God and Jesus were "with" each other in the beginning, but different forms/elements, like the trinitarian argument of the same substance yet different forms, like of water, ice and steam.
They were together, yet distinctly independent of each other...
And so my (Wierwille's) definition was interpreted in a trinitarian way as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
divide and conquer-the way inc. vpw el-presidente'
worked for the wrong ****ing god
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Imean no disrespect to anyone by this but one conversation with a member of a group can simply not be expected to represent the entire group. I once had a conversation with a Catholic who was convinced the Pope was an acid head (lsd user). Did that make it true? Early on in the indoctrination process it was made very clear that "Thou shalt have no other GODS before me " meant it was not within TWI thinking to accept the trinity as one seperate entity. Chapter and verse? "JCING" is too long to quote here. Maybe this aspect calls for avisit to the archives where it has already been discussed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I have NEVER understood what the heck was in the punch when someone decided
Romans 12:1
"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."
that the word "reasonable" in Romans 12:1, which is the Greek word
"logikos", meaning "logical" most obviously,
should always be given as "RELIGIOUS",
as in
"which is your RELIGIOUS service."
That was in the Intermediate (E@rl Burt0n) and Renewed Mind (Walter C) classes,
and I have no idea WHY.
I do know it was OFFICIAL, since it was being taught in the taped classes
for MULTIPLE classes, and vpw signed off on both, introducing the Intermediate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Worse than that, Oak, in everyday conversation or a really good discussion with some friends gets going and - wham! - they say something that really cranks me up and, halfway through whatever I'm saying, I realize I'm parrotting TWI or using something I learned there as a basis for my argument.
I have to then backtrack. I've gotten better at noticing it, but it's still there. I've started saying, "some people believe..." or "some churches teach...." no matter what topic I'm on - that way I'm neither condoning it or saying that it's correct. THEN I can determine/decide if it's something I subscribe to or if I'm giving knee-jerk responses.
Maybe not the best way to deal with those PFAL-Colored Glasses, but it's the best I've come up with so far.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
One of my favorites is when Wierwille talks about "the Lord's Brethren". He dismisses the idea that Jesus' brothers and sisters are Joseph's kids from a previous marriage because "that would invalidate Jesus' claim to the Davidic throne". The only problem with that reasoning is that Wierwille in another study identifies Mary's geneology in Matthew as the "royal" one, so any children Joseph may have had from another wife are irrelevant. Turns out that Wierwille is just parroting Bullinger, who makes the claim in the Companion Bible appendixes. The difference is that Bullinger had a different opinion about the geneologies than did Wierwille. Few questioned the inconsistancy.
What about the claim that "in the original", the first word of Genesis is "God"? Forget about Wierwille already saying that "there are no originals". Pick a language that you think is "original", and look at the first word: in Hebrew (the most likely claim for an "original" language) it's bereshyth, translated as "in the beginning, elohim is the third word. Even in Aramaic it's the same word order. Anybody ever check that one?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Oaks,
The bottom line is that Wierwille's heterodox doctrines were dependent upon the shoddy work that either he did or that he lifted off of somebody else. The constant twisting (and mangling) of Greek and Hebrew etymology was the pseudo-scientific mechanism that allowed for this mangling.
An interesting sidebar question to this would be: how many actual qualified/credentialed scripture scholars, theologians, etc., ever joined TWI? (i.e., those who were scholars prior to their initial encounter with TWI) [in fact, I think that this would be a good thing upon which to base a new thread]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
lambano is one that I looked at kind of late in the game and couldn't find it to mean receive into manifestation. As far as I could tell it plainly meant to recieve or take what is given to you or to take away. For eg. in Matt it says "He takes (lambano) our infirmities and bares our sickness." There are many other examples with that one that just don't make sense as receive into manifestation.
That along with "filled to overflowing", which is what, pletho? We were taught this one along side lambano in relation to "manifesting." I was at a non-way Christian friend's house one day and picked up a book on the subject and the author explained how pletho in Greek literature was used many times in reference to a ship taking on water and being "overtaken" by it. I brought it up after a fellowship one time and the conversation was quickly silenced by the FC by asking me why I was reading books like these when I had all those twi books, mags, and tapes to read and listen to yada yada yada.
The pros definition never seemed to fit perfectly for me either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
What was the big deal with the "also"s? I never saw where it made that much difference in the interpretation.
Arbitrarily deciding which italicized words to keep and which to "scratch out". No basis except to make it fit with whatever vee pee wanted.
Sorry, Oak, it looks like my first post was in no way relevant to the topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
My earlier post was as clear as mud. I apologize.I was neither condoning nor condeming trinitarian theology. I was merely trying to convey that TWI was very clear on how they felt about the trinity. When I cited " Jesus Christ Is Not GOD" as a reference I meant it was a reference of TWI beliefs to be used to demonstrate TWI beliefs not necessarily an end all reference source of information regarding the trinity. Hence, it illustrates looking at one tenet, in this example the trinity, through PFAL (TWI) colored glasses.This is not a judgement of the actual book itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
From the thread I started up in "About the Way:"
Those PFAL-colored glasses would act as a huge inhibitor that limited anybody's ability to do true scholarly work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hope this isn’t off topic – after thinking more about Oakspear’s term “PFAL-colored glasses” and Markomalley saying those glasses would act as a huge inhibitor to someone doing true scholarly work – I remembered something. I knew a technician who was color-blind – he could not distinguish between the colors red and green – which would be a problem for someone assembling/installing electronic systems using multi-colored wires [which was his job]. It wasn’t for him – he carried a red-colored lens – and he showed me how it worked. He held up the red and green jacketed wires . When he held the red-colored lens in front of the pair - - the red colored wire disappeared! So, the wire he could see was the green colored one…Perhaps the technician’s red lens hiding trick is analogous to the way TWI’s skewed interpretation of the Bible affects its followers – it can render certain things virtually invisible!
No one is perfect. All reasoning is done from a viewpoint. I think it’s important to be aware of our own limitations, occasionally re-examining our own viewpoint – as well as seeking out other viewpoints – and strive to be fair-minded in evaluating all points of view.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.