That seems a valid and obvious point ... but such things were commonly overlooked i think ...
I remember some corps week teaching I think ... about gematria or something. It was where the letters had numeric values, and you could add the numbers up to come up with totals that supposedly had significance. But they used the Greek, while twi had been teaching the originals were in Aramaic.
So I asked someone smart I guess, but it was basically, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". No point in having to answer to clear contradictions.
People are more comfortable ust accepting that they have the answers than having to face such facts. Like vp when he mocked the one guy "I have the answer" ... so that guy was vpw.
I suppose one could say "all scripture" just meant all scripture, whether it had been written yet or not. But how it was determined to include some "scripture" and not other "writings" is not clear. VP's answer was simple ... if it was wrong, he'd tell us.
"A visitor from a foreign land could visit a hundred churches before he ever heard of the righteousness of God which preaches both the Law to condemn the sinner and the Gospel to save the sinner. He could visit a thousand churches before hearing that the Bible IS God's Word from Genesis to Revelation, completely without error. And here lies the reason for the sinfulness that disgraces our nation: The failure of America's churches."
Here is a link to a Wiki that details the Christian Identity Movement that gave birth to such entities as The Christian Patriot.
(It's a bit lengthy but if you read through it you will find reference to the original sin being a sexual liaison between Eve and the Devil.
You will also find reference to the theory that today's Jews are not the Biblical Jews.)
"One of the most distinguishing beliefs held by Identity Christians is the belief that modern Jews are not the Biblical "House of Israel". Identity Christians hold that modern Jews are not even the Biblical "house of Judah", but rather claim they are Edomites, descendants of Esau, that mixed with the House of Judah in Babylonian captivity, or are Khazars that adopted Judaism in 838 A.D. to avoid warring with Christian Europe, or the emerging power of Islam in the Middle East.[5] This is known as the single-seedline version of Christian Identity. Other Identity Christians, known as dual-seedliners, believe that Jews were a result of Eve and the serpent in the Garden of Eden having sexual intercourse.[6] Some Identity Christians believe that a version of Christianity must have existed before Roman Christianity entered Europe. Proponents of this theology cite the existence of Celtic Christianity and its struggles with Roman Christianity as evidence, arguing that Celtic Christianity must have been a reflection of the native beliefs of many European tribes. On a related note, many Christian Identity churches display animosity towards the Roman Catholic Church, referring to it as the Whore of Babylon."
"English banker Edward Hine (1825-1891) published an influential book on British Israelism in 1871 called Forty-Seven Identifications of the British Nation With Lost Israel. In 1884, Hine sailed to America to spread his ideas there. Howard Rand (1889-1991), born in Haverhill, Massachusetts, took Hine's ideas, added antisemitism, and called the result "Christian Identity."
Wesley Swift (1913-1970) is considered by the FBI to have been the single most significant figure in the early years of the Christian Identity movement. Swift helped popularize a new element: the "two-seed" (or "seedliner") theory, which holds that Eve was seduced by the Serpent, conceived Cain as a result, and that modern Jews are actually descended from Cain. Most current Identity groups embrace this belief. (Some figures once prominent in the Identity movement (Pete Peters, Ted Weiland) believe that modern Jews are descended from the Khazars rather than from Satan. However, in recent years they seem to have backed away from the Identity label.)"
In '87 after I'd left HQ and was far far away, I told the leader of the first offshoot that unlike him, I wasn't comfortable with assuming that the keys to research, etc. that VP taught were right. For instance, I wondered what the word "scripture" really referred to in that verse that says all scripture is given by inspiration of God, etc.
I told him that as far as I knew, the cannon of the Bible wasn't established at the time that verse was written so how could "scripture" in that verse refer to the whole Bible as we have it today? He said he didn't have time to do all that research...
That's one reason why I had a problem with "offshoots." So I went to college, read lots of books, and got a degree in English.
brideofjc
The Greek word simply means "writings" which would include OT and the new forming NT, even though they weren't calling it that yet.
penworks: That's my point. There was no NT yet. There was no Bible yet. Didn't VPW teach that this word "scripture" referred to the Bible? Seems to me his stance was that the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation was what the word "scripture" referred to here. Maybe I'm wrong...but I think he got this idea from another fundamentalist...
This is very true. The New Testament that we have today was not fully realized until the third century, and even then there were some small disputes here and there. But overall, the majority of the 27 books we have as the New Testament today were agreed upon and used by Christians by the middle of the third century. It's said that Origen, one of early church fathers, gives us a clear 27 book New Testament pretty much exactly as we have it today by the early 200s. I think the earliest record we have of any set order is from Irenaeus in the second century, and that list is only of the four Gospels.
That seems a valid and obvious point ... but such things were commonly overlooked i think ...
I remember some corps week teaching I think ... about gematria or something. It was where the letters had numeric values, and you could add the numbers up to come up with totals that supposedly had significance. But they used the Greek, while twi had been teaching the originals were in Aramaic.
...and to add to that: Gematria is the numerology of the Hebrew language, not Greek or Aramaic.
So I asked someone smart I guess, but it was basically, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". No point in having to answer to clear contradictions.
People are more comfortable ust accepting that they have the answers than having to face such facts. Like vp when he mocked the one guy "I have the answer" ... so that guy was vpw.
I suppose one could say "all scripture" just meant all scripture, whether it had been written yet or not. But how it was determined to include some "scripture" and not other "writings" is not clear. VP's answer was simple ... if it was wrong, he'd tell us.
I don't get it. TWI is so concerned about biblical research that you'd think they'd do a bit more searching into the history around it. So then you wouldn't have these problems of thinking the Bible as we know it always existed in some strange way.
What is the bible today may not be all the scripture that was God breathed...some books, parts, words may have been added, or left out completely.
I consider a large part of what we were taught in twi was twisted and spiritually bankrupt.
We were fed a big messy pot of congealed goo doctrines that were either invented or stolen in many cases, by old dear vic. Who knows if any were authoritative sources, Cummins, vp et al, were sloppy in their workmanship, veepee often in a Dramboui haze, not to mention what was taught was mixed with a constant sprinkling of manipulative coercion and control tactics, all care of an ego driven, paunchy old fart, who got off on money, power and serial sexual deviancy....nice mix!
Unfortunately, the way many folks "rework" what was in PFAL is to glance at the King James or maybe crack open a Young's concordance for a cursory look.
Unless one tosses out Wiewille's made-up definitions of Greek and Hebrew words, his false assumptions and unwarranted leaps of illogic, his misrepresentations of what other Christians actually believe, and generally shoddy research skills, one isn't really "checking it for yourself".
"Keeping the fish and spitting out the bones" assumes that you can tell the difference between the fish and the bones.
Unfortunately, the way many folks "rework" what was in PFAL is to glance at the King James or maybe crack open a Young's concordance for a cursory look.
Unless one tosses out Wiewille's made-up definitions of Greek and Hebrew words, his false assumptions and unwarranted leaps of illogic, his misrepresentations of what other Christians actually believe, and generally shoddy research skills, one isn't really "checking it for yourself".
"Keeping the fish and spitting out the bones" assumes that you can tell the difference between the fish and the bones.
Yeah, I considered "reworking everything" in 1986 when I resigned from the research team.
But that thought drove me nuts; I realized that could go on forever.
Then I thought "why spend all my life trying to correct VP? Besides, I didn't have the academic background for doing it anyway, I simply had just seen enough problems, flaws in his work, theology, etc. to sink a battleship and was sick of the fanatical fundamentalism twi promoted.
Then I thought, VP's biblical research methods and desire for world-domination had already taken 16 years of my life and I didn't think his work or his "cause" was worth a minute more. Nor were any offshoots.
Then I thought, I could instead invest my time and energy in my own education, develop my own talents, get a decent job, straighten out my life, etc.
Yeah, I considered "reworking everything" in 1986 when I resigned from the research team.
But that thought drove me nuts; I realized that could go on forever.
.... Then I thought, VP's biblical research methods and desire for world-domination had already taken 16 years of my life and I didn't think his work or his "cause" was worth a minute more. Nor were any offshoots.
Then I thought, I could instead invest my time and energy in my own education, develop my own talents, get a decent job, straighten out my life, etc.
So that last thought won out.
Yeah, I went down those same thoughts too. And if I re - researched everything, it's only my opinion as many thing are not black and white, as there are plenty more "knowldgable" folks than I in the original languages and they disagree and miss the boat from time to time! More of MY research, more of MY knowledge makes nothing more than more of ME than needs BE!
But then I thought, I could get a job too.. Er, well, have my own business.., my own life....
But I realized, how is that helping others?! Still would be ME and about ME!
And then, I realized, Christianity really isn't about the ME knowledge, or the ME job, but about the others. About God's love and giving that to others. And that can be done anywhere in anything. So now my business reflects that, and my life and ministering(aka serving) reflects that.
What is the bible today may not be all the scripture that was God breathed...some books, parts, words may have been added, or left out completely.
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that should be written" John 21:25
I consider a large part of what we were taught in twi was twisted and spiritually bankrupt.
Just who are the: "we that were taught in TWI" that you are referring to?
Consider first that whatever you are referring to all (without exception) largely depends on: just who taught who, and just who taught what.
What may have been twisted and become spiritually bankrupt certainly has nothing at all (without exception) to do with what is written.
We were fed a big messy pot of congealed goo doctrines that were either invented or stolen in many cases, by old dear vic. Who knows if any were authoritative sources, Cummins, vp et al, were sloppy in their workmanship, veepee often in a Dramboui haze, not to mention what was taught was mixed with a constant sprinkling of manipulative coercion and control tactics, all care of an ego driven, paunchy old fart, who got off on money, power and serial sexual deviancy....nice mix!
I am sure this line of reasoning makes you "feel" significant, because here you can parrot what has already been "parrotted" by countless others who came before you. Being able to squawk among the biggest "squawkers" here must certainly make you feel very significant.
Of course we all have these "lies" we must tell ourselves to make us feel good about ourselves and to look "real good" before others. Some lies even look better and are more believable than others. If this is your source to where you derive your feelings for significance and importance, then you will continue to hold onto those lies like it was "your daily bread."
We all need to start over and rework EVERYTHING..
So far this is the only thing you and I agree on, but it all really depends on what the source is for "your daily bread".
Wierwille built an entire organization by deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of the handful of scriptures he used as the foundation of his "ministry".
Start with John 10:10, if you want, and ask yourself if Wierwille didn't perhaps take it out of context and give it a meaning that isn't really there. The sole purpose of Jesus's life was to insure a really cool life for us in the here and now? Sounds a bit far fetched and simplistic to me.
Then, move on to II Timothy 3:16 and ask yourself honestly if this is really God's exhortation to us to make "study" the focal point of our lives or just a gimmick to enlist us in an endless procession of classes. (Especially so, when you consider that the word "study" is an inaccurate translation to begin with.)
Next, move on to II Peter 1:20 and read it in its true context. Maybe even do one of those wacky sentence diagram exercises that we older folks remember from grade school and see what the subject of this passage is.
Now, some people will say "it wasn't written in English!" Maybe not but it was TAUGHT to us in English using the conventions of the English language.
Yeah, he put it all together, alright, in a way that suited his own agenda.
In '87 after I'd left HQ and was far far away, I told the leader of the first offshoot that unlike him, I wasn't comfortable with assuming that the keys to research, etc. that VP taught were right. For instance, I wondered what the word "scripture" really referred to in that verse that says all scripture is given by inspiration of God, etc.
I told him that as far as I knew, the cannon of the Bible wasn't established at the time that verse was written so how could "scripture" in that verse refer to the whole Bible as we have it today? He said he didn't have time to do all that research...
That's one reason why I had a problem with "offshoots." So I went to college, read lots of books, and got a degree in English.
brideofjc
The Greek word simply means "writings" which would include OT and the new forming NT, even though they weren't calling it that yet.
penworks: That's my point. There was no NT yet. There was no Bible yet. Didn't VPW teach that this word "scripture" referred to the Bible? Seems to me his stance was that the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation was what the word "scripture" referred to here. Maybe I'm wrong...but I think he got this idea from another fundamentalist...
While there wasn't any NT (as we call it), there was still a BIBLE (Grk=biblios=book/scroll), which was the only Bible that they had, i.e. the OT (which they didn't call it that) but they would have referred to it as the TORAH. Many of the LETTERS are what is called INCIDENTAL LETTERS, meaning an INCIDENT happened in a church that required a letter from an apostle to help straighten out the situation. But God's Word is still God's Word and the major part of the NT are quotes, allusions or paraphrases of the OT. Don't tell any fundys about this however, it may get you shot.
Rhino:
about gematria or something. It was where the letters had numeric values, and you could add the numbers up to come up with totals that supposedly had significance. But they used the Greek, while twi had been teaching the originals were in Aramaic.
I suppose one could say "all scripture" just meant all scripture, whether it had been written yet or not. But how it was determined to include some "scripture" and not other "writings" is not clear.
The Gematria is in Hebrew and this was also their numerical system as well. The reason (I believe) is that at first the apostle's wouldn't have dared in their own minds equated their little letters to the same magnitude of the Torah. It wasn't until 50 A.D. and after when the original apostles were beginning to age and of course some had already been martyred that they began to realize that they needed to write it down in order to preserve what the Lord Jesus had said and done. By the time that Paul is in prison for the last time, he is then writing that they should bring the SCROLLS and it is at this time that people began to see the need for conservation of these precious documents and the need to adopt the same scribal efforts that they gave to the preservation of the Torah.
Waysider:
Wesley Swift (1913-1970) is considered by the FBI to have been the single most significant figure in the early years of the Christian Identity movement. Swift helped popularize a new element: the "two-seed" (or "seedliner") theory, which holds that Eve was seduced by the Serpent, conceived Cain as a result, and that modern Jews are actually descended from Cain.
Except you have a problem with that theory in that the Holy Seed would have been through Seth, since Abel was murdered and Cain disallowed, therefore, most likely, Noah was a direct descendant whose bloodline was pure and not mixed and he and his family were the only ones saved.
NIS:
What is the bible today may not be all the scripture that was God breathed...some books, parts, words may have been added, or left out completely.
When the Canon was being analyzed and formed one of the major attributes that was considered for eligibility into the canon was apostolic authority. See the link below, Warfield believes that the apostles would have thought of their writings on the same par as the Torah, but I do not, simply because most of these men were illiterate fishermen. Many of the books were penned by an emanuensis, and I do not believe at the first they would have equated it with equal worth. I do believe as I wrote above that it came to be thought of in that way, but much later.
The Greek word Hagiographa is what would be used to describe Holy Writings, and even though 2 Tim 3:16 lists the Greek word as "Grapha" yet nonetheless is was given by the inspiration of the One True God, and of course I know that you all remember what that word is.....Theopneustos!
My point in posting that was merely to illustrate that Wierwille and LCM were not the originators of this theory or the Khazar theory nor did they get them by some special revelation from God. It's also a known fact that Wierwille had direct ties to groups that fall under the "Identity Christian" umbrella. What Wierwille basically did was take obscure things from other sources and pretend he got them via a special hot line he had to God when, in fact, he got some of them from a hot line he had to White Supremacy groups.
The guy was a con-man and he used God as his shill.
Yeah, I considered "reworking everything" in 1986 when I resigned from the research team.
But that thought drove me nuts; I realized that could go on forever.
Then I thought "why spend all my life trying to correct VP? Besides, I didn't have the academic background for doing it anyway, I simply had just seen enough problems, flaws in his work, theology, etc. to sink a battleship and was sick of the fanatical fundamentalism twi promoted.
Then I thought, VP's biblical research methods and desire for world-domination had already taken 16 years of my life and I didn't think his work or his "cause" was worth a minute more. Nor were any offshoots.
Then I thought, I could instead invest my time and energy in my own education, develop my own talents, get a decent job, straighten out my life, etc.
So that last thought won out.
worth repeating
and TrustAndObey... good additional comments.
As for me, I'm surprised this is not in Doctrinal... but maybe I'm just looking at it that way because of my POV. In my view, "all Scripture" does not refer to the whole Bible, but the OT. That is not to say that what was later to be accepted as the NT could not fit this context, with the information in that context applying very nicely to the writings of Paul, Peter, John, Jude, et al. There's that interesting verse in Peter, which speaks of Paul's writings, and comparing to the Scriptures...
“And account [that]the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2Pe 3:15-16 AV)
Here's an alternate question: To what does "the word of God" refer in the following verse?
“For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Heb 4:12 AV)
By the way, the phrase "the word of God" occurs 45 times in the KJV. Interesting reading.
The Bible being "the word of God" is only part of the answer. Yes, I do believe it is. But it is quite clear to me that my understanding of the Bible is a result of God speakING (present tense) in my reading of it (or of anyone else.) I reject the "biblical research" paradigm that implies that a dispassionate, scientific/logical reading of the Scriptures leads one to Truth. God Himself (Jesus and "the Holy Spirit" included by way of that Unity, and the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord) has to bring light to this old heart. I believe the process of reading and understanding the Scriptures is not that much different from the way in which they were originally inspired!
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me:
and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father,
and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot,
Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
Jesus answered and said unto him,
If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him,
and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings:
and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things,
and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(Joh 14:21-26 AV)
edited to add bold, and this notice..... snuk snuk
How do we get this topic moved to the Doctrinal forum? (good idea, AnotherDan). Although I really did not intend it as a doctrinal issue, more like a textual history issue, but some may interpret it as doctrinal...
Granted, PFAL did not have time to go into the history of "how we got the Bible" other than some cursory half-sentence some place. However, later classes might have covered it.
Certainly it should have been a part of Corps training if we are looking at Christian leadership (which is what the WC was "sold" as). History of how we got the Bible was perhaps studied or at least touched on in early Corps but post-PoP was also post-everyone who could have given any half-way considered history. That's if anyone still had a mind to ask questions like that.
We might also consider that there must have been many other documents both in OT and NT times which are not included in the Bible. Paul was a prolific writer who kept in touch with his budding "church plants" around the Med area. Were those letters not "God breathed"? The congregations who sought his advice would have expected them to be!
One letter from the church in Jerusalem is recorded in Acts; does that mean that none of the elders there ever wrote anything else? No letters back to Galilee, for example, to any "church plants" they may have made there (if any)?
"Scripture" means that which is in script, ie, written. "All" scripture? So straight away we have the PFAL definition, "all without exception or all with distinction." Hey, I didn't write the book and I didn't choose the contents of the book. I'm just saying that not everything that has ever been written especially within the context of the new Christian church of Acts, the first century etc, is included within "scripture" and there's "wiggle room." So where within the PFAL definition us "scripture" defined?
My personal sin in involvement with the Way was an acceptance of another man's paradigm in regard to the Word, the Lord, and all. It sounded good to me.... an honest approach to the Word, but after many years, I realized that Jesus Christ was in fact NOT MY LORD. Dang!
And that I didn't know the FIRST THING about the Christian life... nor the Second, which is like unto it.
God is gracious; apparently, He hasn't given up on me!
Wouldn't you think this stuff would have at least been covered in Basic Keys To Research?
Well, I have the silly-bus right here in front of me and it's nowhere to be found.
Hmmm.--- There is a hand written admonition to avoid Bullinger's How To Enjoy The Bible unless it is used for a specialized study and only if it agrees with what is taught in BKTR.(Per the class instructor)
Ha!---Here's another note. "Avoid Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels/ Harmony of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles/ Harmony of Lives of Moses and Paul. They are PI and have no value."
I can't believe I even stayed awake long enough to get that much.
Here's an alternate question: To what does "the word of God" refer in the following verse?
By the way, the phrase "the word of God" occurs 45 times in the KJV. Interesting reading.
The Bible being "the word of God" is only part of the answer. Yes, I do believe it is. But it is quite clear to me that my understanding of the Bible is a result of God speakING (present tense) in my reading of it (or of anyone else.) I reject the "biblical research" paradigm that implies that a dispassionate, scientific/logical reading of the Scriptures leads one to Truth. God Himself (Jesus and "the Holy Spirit" included by way of that Unity, and the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord) has to bring light to this old heart. I believe the process of reading and understanding the Scriptures is not that much different from the way in which they were originally inspired!
edited to add bold, and this notice..... snuk snuk
Hello, Another Dan...
I see it as totally the Lord Jesus Christ....albeit, HE is speaking the written word of God, and/or "new" word of God, for everytime HE utters words to us, is it not the VERY WORD OF GOD? Yes, I also believe that the HS working with us leads us to understanding the written Word of God, even as much as this would be also how it was originally inspired, even if the writers didn't comprehend fully that it was the HS leading them.
"A visitor from a foreign land could visit a hundred churches before he ever heard of the righteousness of God which preaches both the Law to condemn the sinner and the Gospel to save the sinner."
Just one little thought.. isn't it rather convenient that they can both provide a sickness, and a cure, all at the same time?
We might also consider that there must have been many other documents both in OT and NT times which are not included in the Bible. Paul was a prolific writer who kept in touch with his budding "church plants" around the Med area. Were those letters not "God breathed"? The congregations who sought his advice would have expected them to be!
One letter from the church in Jerusalem is recorded in Acts; does that mean that none of the elders there ever wrote anything else? No letters back to Galilee, for example, to any "church plants" they may have made there (if any)?
"Scripture" means that which is in script, ie, written. "All" scripture? So straight away we have the PFAL definition, "all without exception or all with distinction." Hey, I didn't write the book and I didn't choose the contents of the book. I'm just saying that not everything that has ever been written especially within the context of the new Christian church of Acts, the first century etc, is included within "scripture" and there's "wiggle room." So where within the PFAL definition us "scripture" defined?
There are many writiings that didn't make the grade as far as being of apostolic authorship etc., dates were wrong, such as letters claiming to have been written by an apostle, but they were penned after the apostle had been martyred. Many such letters or writings are called pseudepigrapha or "false writings"not that they are "false" in every sense of the word, but that the authorship that they are ascribed to is not accurate. The content could be very accurate. I'm including the meaning from the Bible Dictionary concerning this:
The word refers to certain noncanonical writings purported to have come from biblical characters, and refers to books of ancient Jewish literature outside the canon and the apocrypha. The writings purport to be the work of ancient patriarchs and prophets, but are, in their present form, mostly productions from about 200 B.C. to A.D. 200.
These writings have at times been popular with some branches of Christianity, but by their very nature there is no accepted fixed limit to the number of writings that are called pseudepigrapha, for what one person or group regards as canon another may call pseudepigrapha. Some of the writings originated in Palestine and were written in Hebrew or Aramaic; others originated in North Africa and were written in coptic Greek and Ethiopic. These include legends about biblical characters, hymns, psalms, and apocalypses. Things relating to Enoch, Moses, and Isaiah are prominent.
Although not canonized nor accepted as scripture, the pseudepigrapha are useful in showing various concepts and beliefs held by ancient peoples in the Middle East. In many instances latter-day revelation gives the careful student sufficient insight to discern truth from error in the narratives, and demonstrates that there is an occasional glimmer of historical accuracy in those ancient writings. The student may profit from this, always applying the divine injunction that “whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom” (D&C 91: 5).
Then the next paste job is concerning the Apocrypha:
Secret or hidden.
By this word is generally meant those sacred books of the Jewish people which were not included in the Hebrew Bible (see Canon). They are valuable as forming a link connecting the Old and New Testaments, and are regarded in the church as useful reading, although not all the books are of equal value. They are the subject of a revelation recorded in D&C 91, in which it is stated that the contents are mostly correct, but with many interpolations by man.
Wierwille built an entire organization by deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of the handful of scriptures he used as the foundation of his "ministry".
Start with John 10:10, if you want, and ask yourself if Wierwille didn't perhaps take it out of context and give it a meaning that isn't really there. The sole purpose of Jesus's life was to insure a really cool life for us in the here and now? Sounds a bit far fetched and simplistic to me.
Then, move on to II Timothy 3:16 and ask yourself honestly if this is really God's exhortation to us to make "study" the focal point of our lives or just a gimmick to enlist us in an endless procession of classes. (Especially so, when you consider that the word "study" is an inaccurate translation to begin with.)
Next, move on to II Peter 1:20 and read it in its true context. Maybe even do one of those wacky sentence diagram exercises that we older folks remember from grade school and see what the subject of this passage is.
Now, some people will say "it wasn't written in English!" Maybe not but it was TAUGHT to us in English using the conventions of the English language.
Yeah, he put it all together, alright, in a way that suited his own agenda.
Study doesn't necessarily have to connote books, pens and paper, WS, I think the KJV used this word because that is the word that was popular with them at the time. Kind of like 30 years ago, well maybe 40, one would never have thought to find "ain't" in the dictionary, but it is there now by popular usage, even if it still isn't a correct word.
Wouldn't you think this stuff would have at least been covered in Basic Keys To Research?
Well, I have the silly-bus right here in front of me and it's nowhere to be found.
Hmmm.--- There is a hand written admonition to avoid Bullinger's How To Enjoy The Bible unless it is used for a specialized study and only if it agrees with what is taught in BKTR.(Per the class instructor)
Ha!---Here's another note. "Avoid Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels/ Harmony of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles/ Harmony of Lives of Moses and Paul. They are PI and have no value."
I can't believe I even stayed awake long enough to get that much.
While I have never read those particular books, I would imagine that they were warning folks to stay away, either because"
1. you would clearly see VPW's plagiarisms.
2. you would clearly see VPW's doctrinal errors.
I'll leave you with just those two, I'm sure there is more.
Good night and God Bless, don't let the bed bugs bite!
Yeah, I considered "reworking everything" in 1986 when I resigned from the research team.
But that thought drove me nuts; I realized that could go on forever.
Then I thought "why spend all my life trying to correct VP? Besides, I didn't have the academic background for doing it anyway, I simply had just seen enough problems, flaws in his work, theology, etc. to sink a battleship and was sick of the fanatical fundamentalism twi promoted.
Then I thought, VP's biblical research methods and desire for world-domination had already taken 16 years of my life and I didn't think his work or his "cause" was worth a minute more. Nor were any offshoots.
Then I thought, I could instead invest my time and energy in my own education, develop my own talents, get a decent job, straighten out my life, etc.
So that last thought won out.
Good move, penworks...........
Nice thread topic. Very thought-provoking. Thanks.
Study doesn't necessarily have to connote books, pens and paper, WS, I think the KJV used this word because that is the word that was popular with them at the time. Kind of like 30 years ago, well maybe 40, one would never have thought to find "ain't" in the dictionary, but it is there now by popular usage, even if it still isn't a correct word.
Bride
Yes, your point regarding popular usage is well taken.
Here is an excerpt from Raf's "Actual Errors In PFAL"
In PFAL: Wierwille writes, "The first word in II Timothy 2:15 is ‘study.' The very first thing a person must do to rightly divide the Word is study. He is not told to study commentaries or secular writers; he must study The Word."
In truth: The word "study" in II Timothy 2:15 would more accurately be translated "endeavor." It does not mean "study" in the way Wierwille uses it. The NIV translates it "do your best." So does the Contemporary English Version. The New Living Translation renders it "work hard."
Discussion: Wierwille is deliberately using a mistranslated word to prove his point. The point itself is valid: studying God's Word is a good thing. But that is not the point of that particular word. The strange thing is, Wierwille knows this. His chapter on "Study: Be Diligent" in The Bible Tells Me So makes that clear. So why allow the mistake to remain? If the accuracy of the Bible is such a big deal, why rely on an inaccurate translation to make your point?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
13
22
34
Popular Days
May 18
30
May 1
18
May 4
15
May 8
11
Top Posters In This Topic
sirguessalot 11 posts
Oakspear 13 posts
penworks 22 posts
brideofjc 34 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2008
30 posts
May 1 2008
18 posts
May 4 2008
15 posts
May 8 2008
11 posts
rhino
That seems a valid and obvious point ... but such things were commonly overlooked i think ...
I remember some corps week teaching I think ... about gematria or something. It was where the letters had numeric values, and you could add the numbers up to come up with totals that supposedly had significance. But they used the Greek, while twi had been teaching the originals were in Aramaic.
So I asked someone smart I guess, but it was basically, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". No point in having to answer to clear contradictions.
People are more comfortable ust accepting that they have the answers than having to face such facts. Like vp when he mocked the one guy "I have the answer" ... so that guy was vpw.
I suppose one could say "all scripture" just meant all scripture, whether it had been written yet or not. But how it was determined to include some "scripture" and not other "writings" is not clear. VP's answer was simple ... if it was wrong, he'd tell us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Here is an excerpt from The Christian Patriot that I found at this link:
http://lexingtonlutheran.org/sermons/s70603.htm
"A visitor from a foreign land could visit a hundred churches before he ever heard of the righteousness of God which preaches both the Law to condemn the sinner and the Gospel to save the sinner. He could visit a thousand churches before hearing that the Bible IS God's Word from Genesis to Revelation, completely without error. And here lies the reason for the sinfulness that disgraces our nation: The failure of America's churches."
Here is a link to a Wiki that details the Christian Identity Movement that gave birth to such entities as The Christian Patriot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
(It's a bit lengthy but if you read through it you will find reference to the original sin being a sexual liaison between Eve and the Devil.
You will also find reference to the theory that today's Jews are not the Biblical Jews.)
"One of the most distinguishing beliefs held by Identity Christians is the belief that modern Jews are not the Biblical "House of Israel". Identity Christians hold that modern Jews are not even the Biblical "house of Judah", but rather claim they are Edomites, descendants of Esau, that mixed with the House of Judah in Babylonian captivity, or are Khazars that adopted Judaism in 838 A.D. to avoid warring with Christian Europe, or the emerging power of Islam in the Middle East.[5] This is known as the single-seedline version of Christian Identity. Other Identity Christians, known as dual-seedliners, believe that Jews were a result of Eve and the serpent in the Garden of Eden having sexual intercourse.[6] Some Identity Christians believe that a version of Christianity must have existed before Roman Christianity entered Europe. Proponents of this theology cite the existence of Celtic Christianity and its struggles with Roman Christianity as evidence, arguing that Celtic Christianity must have been a reflection of the native beliefs of many European tribes. On a related note, many Christian Identity churches display animosity towards the Roman Catholic Church, referring to it as the Whore of Babylon."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"English banker Edward Hine (1825-1891) published an influential book on British Israelism in 1871 called Forty-Seven Identifications of the British Nation With Lost Israel. In 1884, Hine sailed to America to spread his ideas there. Howard Rand (1889-1991), born in Haverhill, Massachusetts, took Hine's ideas, added antisemitism, and called the result "Christian Identity."
Wesley Swift (1913-1970) is considered by the FBI to have been the single most significant figure in the early years of the Christian Identity movement. Swift helped popularize a new element: the "two-seed" (or "seedliner") theory, which holds that Eve was seduced by the Serpent, conceived Cain as a result, and that modern Jews are actually descended from Cain. Most current Identity groups embrace this belief. (Some figures once prominent in the Identity movement (Pete Peters, Ted Weiland) believe that modern Jews are descended from the Khazars rather than from Satan. However, in recent years they seem to have backed away from the Identity label.)"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brushstroke
...and to add to that: Gematria is the numerology of the Hebrew language, not Greek or Aramaic.
I don't get it. TWI is so concerned about biblical research that you'd think they'd do a bit more searching into the history around it. So then you wouldn't have these problems of thinking the Bible as we know it always existed in some strange way.
Edited by BrushstrokeLink to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
What is the bible today may not be all the scripture that was God breathed...some books, parts, words may have been added, or left out completely.
I consider a large part of what we were taught in twi was twisted and spiritually bankrupt.
We were fed a big messy pot of congealed goo doctrines that were either invented or stolen in many cases, by old dear vic. Who knows if any were authoritative sources, Cummins, vp et al, were sloppy in their workmanship, veepee often in a Dramboui haze, not to mention what was taught was mixed with a constant sprinkling of manipulative coercion and control tactics, all care of an ego driven, paunchy old fart, who got off on money, power and serial sexual deviancy....nice mix!
We all need to start over and rework EVERYTHING..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Unfortunately, the way many folks "rework" what was in PFAL is to glance at the King James or maybe crack open a Young's concordance for a cursory look.
Unless one tosses out Wiewille's made-up definitions of Greek and Hebrew words, his false assumptions and unwarranted leaps of illogic, his misrepresentations of what other Christians actually believe, and generally shoddy research skills, one isn't really "checking it for yourself".
"Keeping the fish and spitting out the bones" assumes that you can tell the difference between the fish and the bones.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Yeah, I considered "reworking everything" in 1986 when I resigned from the research team.
But that thought drove me nuts; I realized that could go on forever.
Then I thought "why spend all my life trying to correct VP? Besides, I didn't have the academic background for doing it anyway, I simply had just seen enough problems, flaws in his work, theology, etc. to sink a battleship and was sick of the fanatical fundamentalism twi promoted.
Then I thought, VP's biblical research methods and desire for world-domination had already taken 16 years of my life and I didn't think his work or his "cause" was worth a minute more. Nor were any offshoots.
Then I thought, I could instead invest my time and energy in my own education, develop my own talents, get a decent job, straighten out my life, etc.
So that last thought won out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Yeah, I went down those same thoughts too. And if I re - researched everything, it's only my opinion as many thing are not black and white, as there are plenty more "knowldgable" folks than I in the original languages and they disagree and miss the boat from time to time! More of MY research, more of MY knowledge makes nothing more than more of ME than needs BE!
But then I thought, I could get a job too.. Er, well, have my own business.., my own life....
But I realized, how is that helping others?! Still would be ME and about ME!
And then, I realized, Christianity really isn't about the ME knowledge, or the ME job, but about the others. About God's love and giving that to others. And that can be done anywhere in anything. So now my business reflects that, and my life and ministering(aka serving) reflects that.
Course, that's just ME! :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Wierwille built an entire organization by deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of the handful of scriptures he used as the foundation of his "ministry".
Start with John 10:10, if you want, and ask yourself if Wierwille didn't perhaps take it out of context and give it a meaning that isn't really there. The sole purpose of Jesus's life was to insure a really cool life for us in the here and now? Sounds a bit far fetched and simplistic to me.
Then, move on to II Timothy 3:16 and ask yourself honestly if this is really God's exhortation to us to make "study" the focal point of our lives or just a gimmick to enlist us in an endless procession of classes. (Especially so, when you consider that the word "study" is an inaccurate translation to begin with.)
Next, move on to II Peter 1:20 and read it in its true context. Maybe even do one of those wacky sentence diagram exercises that we older folks remember from grade school and see what the subject of this passage is.
Now, some people will say "it wasn't written in English!" Maybe not but it was TAUGHT to us in English using the conventions of the English language.
Yeah, he put it all together, alright, in a way that suited his own agenda.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
QUOTE(penworks @ Apr 28 2008, 01:41 PM)
One bit of info to add to this thread:
In '87 after I'd left HQ and was far far away, I told the leader of the first offshoot that unlike him, I wasn't comfortable with assuming that the keys to research, etc. that VP taught were right. For instance, I wondered what the word "scripture" really referred to in that verse that says all scripture is given by inspiration of God, etc.
I told him that as far as I knew, the cannon of the Bible wasn't established at the time that verse was written so how could "scripture" in that verse refer to the whole Bible as we have it today? He said he didn't have time to do all that research...
That's one reason why I had a problem with "offshoots." So I went to college, read lots of books, and got a degree in English.
brideofjc
The Greek word simply means "writings" which would include OT and the new forming NT, even though they weren't calling it that yet.
penworks: That's my point. There was no NT yet. There was no Bible yet. Didn't VPW teach that this word "scripture" referred to the Bible? Seems to me his stance was that the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation was what the word "scripture" referred to here. Maybe I'm wrong...but I think he got this idea from another fundamentalist...
While there wasn't any NT (as we call it), there was still a BIBLE (Grk=biblios=book/scroll), which was the only Bible that they had, i.e. the OT (which they didn't call it that) but they would have referred to it as the TORAH. Many of the LETTERS are what is called INCIDENTAL LETTERS, meaning an INCIDENT happened in a church that required a letter from an apostle to help straighten out the situation. But God's Word is still God's Word and the major part of the NT are quotes, allusions or paraphrases of the OT. Don't tell any fundys about this however, it may get you shot.
Rhino:
about gematria or something. It was where the letters had numeric values, and you could add the numbers up to come up with totals that supposedly had significance. But they used the Greek, while twi had been teaching the originals were in Aramaic.
I suppose one could say "all scripture" just meant all scripture, whether it had been written yet or not. But how it was determined to include some "scripture" and not other "writings" is not clear.
The Gematria is in Hebrew and this was also their numerical system as well. The reason (I believe) is that at first the apostle's wouldn't have dared in their own minds equated their little letters to the same magnitude of the Torah. It wasn't until 50 A.D. and after when the original apostles were beginning to age and of course some had already been martyred that they began to realize that they needed to write it down in order to preserve what the Lord Jesus had said and done. By the time that Paul is in prison for the last time, he is then writing that they should bring the SCROLLS and it is at this time that people began to see the need for conservation of these precious documents and the need to adopt the same scribal efforts that they gave to the preservation of the Torah.
Waysider:
Wesley Swift (1913-1970) is considered by the FBI to have been the single most significant figure in the early years of the Christian Identity movement. Swift helped popularize a new element: the "two-seed" (or "seedliner") theory, which holds that Eve was seduced by the Serpent, conceived Cain as a result, and that modern Jews are actually descended from Cain.
Except you have a problem with that theory in that the Holy Seed would have been through Seth, since Abel was murdered and Cain disallowed, therefore, most likely, Noah was a direct descendant whose bloodline was pure and not mixed and he and his family were the only ones saved.
NIS:
What is the bible today may not be all the scripture that was God breathed...some books, parts, words may have been added, or left out completely.
When the Canon was being analyzed and formed one of the major attributes that was considered for eligibility into the canon was apostolic authority. See the link below, Warfield believes that the apostles would have thought of their writings on the same par as the Torah, but I do not, simply because most of these men were illiterate fishermen. Many of the books were penned by an emanuensis, and I do not believe at the first they would have equated it with equal worth. I do believe as I wrote above that it came to be thought of in that way, but much later.
http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?...ield_canon.html
The Greek word Hagiographa is what would be used to describe Holy Writings, and even though 2 Tim 3:16 lists the Greek word as "Grapha" yet nonetheless is was given by the inspiration of the One True God, and of course I know that you all remember what that word is.....Theopneustos!
Edited by brideofjcLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Hi, Bride
My point in posting that was merely to illustrate that Wierwille and LCM were not the originators of this theory or the Khazar theory nor did they get them by some special revelation from God. It's also a known fact that Wierwille had direct ties to groups that fall under the "Identity Christian" umbrella. What Wierwille basically did was take obscure things from other sources and pretend he got them via a special hot line he had to God when, in fact, he got some of them from a hot line he had to White Supremacy groups.
The guy was a con-man and he used God as his shill.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
worth repeating
and TrustAndObey... good additional comments.
As for me, I'm surprised this is not in Doctrinal... but maybe I'm just looking at it that way because of my POV. In my view, "all Scripture" does not refer to the whole Bible, but the OT. That is not to say that what was later to be accepted as the NT could not fit this context, with the information in that context applying very nicely to the writings of Paul, Peter, John, Jude, et al. There's that interesting verse in Peter, which speaks of Paul's writings, and comparing to the Scriptures...
Here's an alternate question: To what does "the word of God" refer in the following verse?
By the way, the phrase "the word of God" occurs 45 times in the KJV. Interesting reading.
The Bible being "the word of God" is only part of the answer. Yes, I do believe it is. But it is quite clear to me that my understanding of the Bible is a result of God speakING (present tense) in my reading of it (or of anyone else.) I reject the "biblical research" paradigm that implies that a dispassionate, scientific/logical reading of the Scriptures leads one to Truth. God Himself (Jesus and "the Holy Spirit" included by way of that Unity, and the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord) has to bring light to this old heart. I believe the process of reading and understanding the Scriptures is not that much different from the way in which they were originally inspired!
edited to add bold, and this notice..... snuk snuk
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
How do we get this topic moved to the Doctrinal forum? (good idea, AnotherDan). Although I really did not intend it as a doctrinal issue, more like a textual history issue, but some may interpret it as doctrinal...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
Wow, that was beautiful, Another Dan!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Granted, PFAL did not have time to go into the history of "how we got the Bible" other than some cursory half-sentence some place. However, later classes might have covered it.
Certainly it should have been a part of Corps training if we are looking at Christian leadership (which is what the WC was "sold" as). History of how we got the Bible was perhaps studied or at least touched on in early Corps but post-PoP was also post-everyone who could have given any half-way considered history. That's if anyone still had a mind to ask questions like that.
We might also consider that there must have been many other documents both in OT and NT times which are not included in the Bible. Paul was a prolific writer who kept in touch with his budding "church plants" around the Med area. Were those letters not "God breathed"? The congregations who sought his advice would have expected them to be!
One letter from the church in Jerusalem is recorded in Acts; does that mean that none of the elders there ever wrote anything else? No letters back to Galilee, for example, to any "church plants" they may have made there (if any)?
"Scripture" means that which is in script, ie, written. "All" scripture? So straight away we have the PFAL definition, "all without exception or all with distinction." Hey, I didn't write the book and I didn't choose the contents of the book. I'm just saying that not everything that has ever been written especially within the context of the new Christian church of Acts, the first century etc, is included within "scripture" and there's "wiggle room." So where within the PFAL definition us "scripture" defined?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
it's all good, Pen...
It is About the Way, too.
My personal sin in involvement with the Way was an acceptance of another man's paradigm in regard to the Word, the Lord, and all. It sounded good to me.... an honest approach to the Word, but after many years, I realized that Jesus Christ was in fact NOT MY LORD. Dang!
And that I didn't know the FIRST THING about the Christian life... nor the Second, which is like unto it.
God is gracious; apparently, He hasn't given up on me!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Wouldn't you think this stuff would have at least been covered in Basic Keys To Research?
Well, I have the silly-bus right here in front of me and it's nowhere to be found.
Hmmm.--- There is a hand written admonition to avoid Bullinger's How To Enjoy The Bible unless it is used for a specialized study and only if it agrees with what is taught in BKTR.(Per the class instructor)
Ha!---Here's another note. "Avoid Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels/ Harmony of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles/ Harmony of Lives of Moses and Paul. They are PI and have no value."
I can't believe I even stayed awake long enough to get that much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Hello, Another Dan...
I see it as totally the Lord Jesus Christ....albeit, HE is speaking the written word of God, and/or "new" word of God, for everytime HE utters words to us, is it not the VERY WORD OF GOD? Yes, I also believe that the HS working with us leads us to understanding the written Word of God, even as much as this would be also how it was originally inspired, even if the writers didn't comprehend fully that it was the HS leading them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Just one little thought.. isn't it rather convenient that they can both provide a sickness, and a cure, all at the same time?
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
There are many writiings that didn't make the grade as far as being of apostolic authorship etc., dates were wrong, such as letters claiming to have been written by an apostle, but they were penned after the apostle had been martyred. Many such letters or writings are called pseudepigrapha or "false writings"not that they are "false" in every sense of the word, but that the authorship that they are ascribed to is not accurate. The content could be very accurate. I'm including the meaning from the Bible Dictionary concerning this:
The word refers to certain noncanonical writings purported to have come from biblical characters, and refers to books of ancient Jewish literature outside the canon and the apocrypha. The writings purport to be the work of ancient patriarchs and prophets, but are, in their present form, mostly productions from about 200 B.C. to A.D. 200.
These writings have at times been popular with some branches of Christianity, but by their very nature there is no accepted fixed limit to the number of writings that are called pseudepigrapha, for what one person or group regards as canon another may call pseudepigrapha. Some of the writings originated in Palestine and were written in Hebrew or Aramaic; others originated in North Africa and were written in coptic Greek and Ethiopic. These include legends about biblical characters, hymns, psalms, and apocalypses. Things relating to Enoch, Moses, and Isaiah are prominent.
Although not canonized nor accepted as scripture, the pseudepigrapha are useful in showing various concepts and beliefs held by ancient peoples in the Middle East. In many instances latter-day revelation gives the careful student sufficient insight to discern truth from error in the narratives, and demonstrates that there is an occasional glimmer of historical accuracy in those ancient writings. The student may profit from this, always applying the divine injunction that “whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom” (D&C 91: 5).
Then the next paste job is concerning the Apocrypha:
Secret or hidden.
By this word is generally meant those sacred books of the Jewish people which were not included in the Hebrew Bible (see Canon). They are valuable as forming a link connecting the Old and New Testaments, and are regarded in the church as useful reading, although not all the books are of equal value. They are the subject of a revelation recorded in D&C 91, in which it is stated that the contents are mostly correct, but with many interpolations by man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Study doesn't necessarily have to connote books, pens and paper, WS, I think the KJV used this word because that is the word that was popular with them at the time. Kind of like 30 years ago, well maybe 40, one would never have thought to find "ain't" in the dictionary, but it is there now by popular usage, even if it still isn't a correct word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
While I have never read those particular books, I would imagine that they were warning folks to stay away, either because"
1. you would clearly see VPW's plagiarisms.
2. you would clearly see VPW's doctrinal errors.
I'll leave you with just those two, I'm sure there is more.
Good night and God Bless, don't let the bed bugs bite!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Good move, penworks...........
Nice thread topic. Very thought-provoking. Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Bride
Yes, your point regarding popular usage is well taken.
Here is an excerpt from Raf's "Actual Errors In PFAL"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Error 17
In PFAL: Wierwille writes, "The first word in II Timothy 2:15 is ‘study.' The very first thing a person must do to rightly divide the Word is study. He is not told to study commentaries or secular writers; he must study The Word."
In truth: The word "study" in II Timothy 2:15 would more accurately be translated "endeavor." It does not mean "study" in the way Wierwille uses it. The NIV translates it "do your best." So does the Contemporary English Version. The New Living Translation renders it "work hard."
Discussion: Wierwille is deliberately using a mistranslated word to prove his point. The point itself is valid: studying God's Word is a good thing. But that is not the point of that particular word. The strange thing is, Wierwille knows this. His chapter on "Study: Be Diligent" in The Bible Tells Me So makes that clear. So why allow the mistake to remain? If the accuracy of the Bible is such a big deal, why rely on an inaccurate translation to make your point?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.