VP was not smart enough to have the "original text" in his own mind,
Uh, I was making a joke..."the original" was a fiction in his own mind...
but the so-called "original text" is a means to an end. Justifying abberant behavior in the practical realm of living is much more gross in my opinion.
I got the joke and I agreed, but by him "not being smart enough" I think I overstepped a point here. None of us will ever be "smart enough" to explicate all the Scriptures, but VP made the mistake of not delegating work that he was unqualified for to others and having a little "faith" that they just might "get it" and go beyond. We can never have that attitude. It's not about us. It's about Him.
With my children, I was never afraid that they might go into some wierd cult (they are both brilliant, BTW...no prejudice here...). If my hermeneutic was wacko and they went off into some Covenantal or Reformed highway on their own because they "saw" something I hadn't, it never bothered me. But we continually vetted things within my family. We talked and talked and talked and they asked question after question after question. Hey, try talking about the Nephilim with teenagers. It's a trip. My point being, I was never afraid to discuss any point of theology (and life) with them. Not so in TWI. Good, qualified men and women were never given the certain freedoms to pursue an area of research and discussion. Bad example for the flock. Witness this site.
...VP made the mistake of not delegating work that he was unqualified for to others and having a little "faith" that they just might "get it" and go beyond.
RE
Do you think he would ever have listened, then, to anyone asking for TWI research to back off from the claim of the inerrancy of scripture as found in the canon of the KJV, which in my view, was his starting point?
...VP made the mistake of not delegating work that he was unqualified for to others and having a little "faith" that they just might "get it" and go beyond. We can never have that attitude. It's not about us. It's about Him.
Do you think he would ever have listened, then, to anyone asking for TWI research to back off from the claim of the inerrancy of scripture as found in the canon of the KJV, which in my view, was his starting point?
I doubt it.
I seem to remember a part in the original PFAL class where he was “remembering” what happened as he was teaching a live class some time before. It was the part that went:
“Verily I say unto you, today shalt thou be with me in paradise - or is it Verily I say unto you today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.”
I recollect him saying to that class that “We might have something here”! Then he went on to say something like, “They all went home - and when they came to class the next day they were all bubbling with excitement, for they too had seen that one little comma had made all the difference”.
First off, I wonder if the incident happened at all. Even if it did, I am sure the students, in an effort to “please the teacher”, all agreed with him. (And from what I have heard, God help them if they dare contradict the “MOG”!)
IMHO, I believe the incident never really happened. But in his mind, the “stooooorrry” was good for his own teaching purposes - and to have us assume he was truly interested in others’ opinions. I personally think he had his mind made up about this point long before the class even began!
I find it hard to believe he was truly meek enough to listen to what others had to say, unless he recognized it as something “valuable enough to plagiarize for himself”.
You are right, Bob – It was not about us, but about HIM.
I seem to remember a part in the original PFAL class where he was “remembering” what happened as he was teaching a live class some time before. It was the part that went:
“Verily I say unto you, today shalt thou be with me in paradise - or is it Verily I say unto you today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.”
I recollect him saying to that class that “We might have something here”! Then he went on to say something like, “They all went home - and when they came to class the next day they were all bubbling with excitement, for they too had seen that one little comma had made all the difference”.
First off, I wonder if the incident happened at all. Even if it did, I am sure the students, in an effort to “please the teacher”, all agreed with him. (And from what I have heard, God help them if they dare contradict the “MOG”!)
IMHO, I believe the incident never really happened. But in his mind, the “stooooorrry” was good for his own teaching purposes - and to have us assume he was truly interested in others’ opinions. I personally think he had his mind made up about this point long before the class even began!
I find it hard to believe he was truly meek enough to listen to what others had to say, unless he recognized it as something “valuable enough to plagiarize for himself”.
You are right, Bob – It was not about us, but about HIM.
SPEC
:)
I find this jaundiced view here a lot and I do understand why. It is hurtful when one’s own view is not even entertained. I’ve felt this often in my educational trek. Scholars in universities (at least in the theological field) often use their students to further their own careers. It’s all about the name, don’t ya know. Religion is cruel.
But in the theological realm there is a starting point and the “inerrancy of scripture” will be where all evangelicals begin. I’d rather call it “the inspiration of the Scriptures” and some day have a rousing discussion on just what inerrancy means, but that’s just me. VP, as many evangelicals, myself included, start with a canon (aka - Scripture). If you start with a “Biblical Research Center”, you of necessity have a “high” view of the texts, do you not. I’m in the same position. I wouldn’t entertain suspicion of Scripture and I’m sure he wouldn’t have either. I don’t consider that a non-research issue. If one wanted to research whether texts WERE Scripture or not, that’s another situation entirely.
I seem to remember a part in the original PFAL class where he was “remembering” what happened as he was teaching a live class some time before. It was the part that went:
“Verily I say unto you, today shalt thou be with me in paradise - or is it Verily I say unto you today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.”
I recollect him saying to that class that “We might have something here”! Then he went on to say something like, “They all went home - and when they came to class the next day they were all bubbling with excitement, for they too had seen that one little comma had made all the difference”.
First off, I wonder if the incident happened at all. Even if it did, I am sure the students, in an effort to “please the teacher”, all agreed with him. (And from what I have heard, God help them if they dare contradict the “MOG”!)
IMHO, I believe the incident never really happened. But in his mind, the “stooooorrry” was good for his own teaching purposes - and to have us assume he was truly interested in others’ opinions. I personally think he had his mind made up about this point long before the class even began!
I find it hard to believe he was truly meek enough to listen to what others had to say, unless he recognized it as something “valuable enough to plagiarize for himself”.
You are right, Bob – It was not about us, but about HIM.
SPEC
:)
He pulled the entire content of the comma thing from Bullinger's work.
vpw was fond of making up stories, or grabbing other people's life experience
and claiming it for his own.
If you read "TW:LiL", you'll see he'd claimed to "preach to the trees"
when growing up, despite an absence of witnesses and of any PIETY when
growing up. This story was lifted from BILLY GRAHAM's life- Billy did that
to try to overcome shyness.
He also made claims about a pair of imaginary businessmen who were generous
in charity donations while being hated by their community they donated to,
who got things done by sitting alone in a room and THINKING about them
without actually DOING anything about them.
Yes-if something was good enough TO PLAGIARIZE, THEN he listened to it,
otherwise, you might as well not even bother with him.
He pulled the entire content of the comma thing from Bullinger's work.
vpw was fond of making up stories, or grabbing other people's life experience
and claiming it for his own.
If you read "TW:LiL", you'll see he'd claimed to "preach to the trees"
when growing up, despite an absence of witnesses and of any PIETY when
growing up. This story was lifted from BILLY GRAHAM's life- Billy did that
to try to overcome shyness.
He also made claims about a pair of imaginary businessmen who were generous
in charity donations while being hated by their community they donated to,
who got things done by sitting alone in a room and THINKING about them
without actually DOING anything about them.
Yes-if something was good enough TO PLAGIARIZE, THEN he listened to it,
otherwise, you might as well not even bother with him.
Spec and Wordwolf,
Is the point in the diatribes that VP was disingenuous or is it that the actual doctrine was at fault (read: rhetorical question)? The doctrine was not at fault. The dead are dead. I suppose if people want to debate that we could all start a thread at the “doctrinal” portion of GSC, but I wouldn’t come. It’s like debating the Trinity. Bought the tee shirt, don’t want to get back in line for another one. There are certain things I’ll move on with. Same in any research endeavor...
But I digress; the “nostalgia for TWI research” in this case seems so far away from the discussion; it’s more like there never was any reminiscence, but rather remonstrance. Can we move on from the fact that VP did not footnote or give reference? He was a very selfish man. But the critical issue is whether what he said here was right or not, eh? Or is it that we were so put upon? BTW, this matter over the comma was not something that Bullinger just thought up either. It had centuries of discussion behind it. Read the commentaries.
I remember reading Are the Dead Alive Now? before I got involved in TWI way back in 1973. I had either taken it out of the library at my school or someone had passed it on to me. In the section about Luke 23:43 VP had a reference to a Syriac text that shed some light on the matter. That reading was not known in any of the journals and commentaries that I had read up to that point (not in Bullinger and probably brought to VP's attention by Lamsa??) and it really is in the Syriac text (Charlene, here’s where the Old Syriac and not the PSHTA text family wins out). Point is, VP’s work, whether plagiarized or not, was correct (in this place).
I've participated in enough discussions, doctrinal and otherwise, with WordWolf, to feel comfortable answering a question not directed to me: the point about plagiarism, invented stories and the like is not beside the point. We were in a group that valued one man's opinion about the bible as supreme. Poking holes in that man's methodology and casting doubt upon his veracity and honesty gets us back to the point where we can actually have a discussion about what the text of the bible actually says, rather than what we thought Wierwille said about it.
From your posts, you appear to have a "real" education in biblical research (did you mention University of Chicago at some point?); I for one welcome your insight and look forward to your contribution in doctrinal discussions.
Many of us seem to be more interested in bashing Wierwille and consigning everything he wrote or taught to the "false" pile. I think that you would find that many who engage in what looks to you like diatribe actually agree with Wierwille on some points, but get worked up when PFAL is referenced rather than a section of the bible.
I've participated in enough discussions, doctrinal and otherwise, with WordWolf, to feel comfortable answering a question not directed to me: the point about plagiarism, invented stories and the like is not beside the point. We were in a group that valued one man's opinion about the bible as supreme. Poking holes in that man's methodology and casting doubt upon his veracity and honesty gets us back to the point where we can actually have a discussion about what the text of the bible actually says, rather than what we thought Wierwille said about it.
From your posts, you appear to have a "real" education in biblical research (did you mention University of Chicago at some point?); I for one welcome your insight and look forward to your contribution in doctrinal discussions.
Many of us seem to be more interested in bashing Wierwille and consigning everything he wrote or taught to the "false" pile. I think that you would find that many who engage in what looks to you like diatribe actually agree with Wierwille on some points, but get worked up when PFAL is referenced rather than a section of the bible.
Oak
Thanks for the reply Oak,
Whether I have some edumacasion will have to be borne out, eh? Yeah, went to U of C after Bible college (Gordon).
I'm wondering whether I should really get too caught up in the doctrinal section. There are still a lot of wounds there and a certain "looking for holes" that can waste a lot of time. Maybe though...maybe.
Hey Bob! Nice posts – Quite a vocabulary you have, sir! Excuse me for sounding ignorant, but I had to look up some words you used:
-----------------------------
edumacasion (edumacation) – seems to be slang for education
disingenuous – lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere
remonstrance – the act of saying or pleading in protest, objection, or disapproval
-----------------------------
I once had a professor who said “Please extinguish the illumination at the termination of activity within this domain”. My friend said, “What?!” I told him, “Turn out the lights when you leave the room.” :unsure:
Spec, you need to watch Bill O'Reilly when he gives the word of the day when telling viewers about writing letters to him. Something JL needs to learn, be pithy. LOL!
Coming to this discussion late, and not having given all 16 pages of this thread the careful reading they deserve, please forgive me if what I am bringing up has already been hashed through.
I believe that there is a major problem with penworks' definition of "research." A definition that I think can be gleaned from one of her posts on this thread:
I appreciate these lessons in mathmatics and logic lately, but I'd like to drag the conversation back to point of the article:
To show that inerrancy is a premise that disallows genuine research to be done. Why? Because a person who thinks the scriptures must be perfect will only look at evidence to back up their claim.
I think I am safe in assuming -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- that penworks' position is that "inerrancy" is disallowed as a premise in biblical research because it is impossible to prove that the Bible is the Word of God. Which would therefore mean, according to her definition, that to be genuine all research has to be based upon provable premises.
In the main article, she is absolutely correct when she describes what is formally-known as "inductive reasoning," when she writes:
Usually the word, “research,” implies embarking on a study to find out what conclusion can be drawn from the evidence found from studying something.
True enough. But the fact remains that ALL research -- although it is carried out via inductive reasoning -- is nevertheless based upon one unprovable premise or another. And that includes ALL scientific research.
I think I am safe in assuming -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- that penworks' position is that "inerrancy" is disallowed as a premise in biblical research because it is impossible to prove that the Bible is the Word of God. Which would therefore mean, according to her definition, that to be genuine all research has to be based upon provable premises.
just a thought.. the alternative makes one to force "inerrancy" in the bible, where it does not reasonably exist..
look at the lengths gone to in JCOP..
True enough. But the fact remains that ALL research -- although it is carried out via inductive reasoning -- is nevertheless based upon one unprovable premise or another. And that includes ALL scientific research.
Like I said, a "major problem."
I don't think its a problem unless one makes it one. I think we were trained in the ministry to regard any other options than the bible being a perfect error free document (supposedly in the *original*) to be an attack from the devil spirit world or something..
Actually, inductive reasoning depends on the truthfulness of a base step. Then one shows for any other arbitrary step, one can prove the next one from the last one..
I believe that there is a major problem with penworks' definition of "research." A definition that I think can be gleaned from one of her posts on this thread:
I think I am safe in assuming -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- that penworks' position is that "inerrancy" is disallowed as a premise in biblical research because it is impossible to prove that the Bible is the Word of God. Which would therefore mean, according to her definition, that to be genuine all research has to be based upon provable premises.
I disagree with your conclusion.
This is what penworks said:
---- inerrancy is a premise that disallows genuine research to be done. Why? Because a person who thinks the scriptures must be perfect will only look at evidence to back up their claim.
She did not say that "all research has to be based on provable premises".
If one were to begin their research with the notion that all scripture is inerrant and that it must all fit together perfectly, one would really be looking for confirmation of what they already believed to be true.
Has anyone ever stopped to consider the phrase "working the word"?
Think of someone "working a room."
Working it... The phrase doesn't inspire studying anything. I think more about moving about looking for an opportunity and a chance to benefit or profit. (Let's not open the can of worms that "profit" holds for those in twi.)
Some of the books of the bible, the epistles I think, I've heard means "letters". If I wrote someone a letter, and they stopped to research, or "work it", I'd take it back.
. . . Not everything in the Way was broken, not everything was damaged maybe, But enough of it was to do all this! The fruit is basically the end-product of a Tree adn your lives are the fruit of the Way, a tree that was infected and apparently still is. That's how I see it.
it was never infected. It was genetically inferior to begin with . . . a tree from a line of trees meant for the wood pile.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
43
39
63
36
Popular Days
Feb 8
30
Nov 3
21
Nov 4
20
Feb 12
18
Top Posters In This Topic
geisha779 43 posts
waysider 39 posts
penworks 63 posts
spectrum49 36 posts
Popular Days
Feb 8 2010
30 posts
Nov 3 2009
21 posts
Nov 4 2009
20 posts
Feb 12 2010
18 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
Hold everything. Some people can believe that they are not sure they believe in God. That is another topic that belongs in a different thread, IMO. I appreciate these lessons in mathmatics and lo
Sunesis
With all due respect Spectrum, who cares when this thread will end? Most people here have enjoyed reading the posts and having their say. Sure, threads meander here, there, everywhere. Its the Body
penworks
I've been thinking about these sorts of things a long time, myself. One thing I found is that there are other ways to value the Bible besides thinkig it is has to be either "God's Word" (thereby it h
penworks
Uh, I was making a joke..."the original" was a fiction in his own mind...
I could not agree more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Yeah, Charlene,
I got the joke and I agreed, but by him "not being smart enough" I think I overstepped a point here. None of us will ever be "smart enough" to explicate all the Scriptures, but VP made the mistake of not delegating work that he was unqualified for to others and having a little "faith" that they just might "get it" and go beyond. We can never have that attitude. It's not about us. It's about Him.
With my children, I was never afraid that they might go into some wierd cult (they are both brilliant, BTW...no prejudice here...). If my hermeneutic was wacko and they went off into some Covenantal or Reformed highway on their own because they "saw" something I hadn't, it never bothered me. But we continually vetted things within my family. We talked and talked and talked and they asked question after question after question. Hey, try talking about the Nephilim with teenagers. It's a trip. My point being, I was never afraid to discuss any point of theology (and life) with them. Not so in TWI. Good, qualified men and women were never given the certain freedoms to pursue an area of research and discussion. Bad example for the flock. Witness this site.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Do you think he would ever have listened, then, to anyone asking for TWI research to back off from the claim of the inerrancy of scripture as found in the canon of the KJV, which in my view, was his starting point?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
I doubt it.
I seem to remember a part in the original PFAL class where he was “remembering” what happened as he was teaching a live class some time before. It was the part that went:
“Verily I say unto you, today shalt thou be with me in paradise - or is it Verily I say unto you today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.”
I recollect him saying to that class that “We might have something here”! Then he went on to say something like, “They all went home - and when they came to class the next day they were all bubbling with excitement, for they too had seen that one little comma had made all the difference”.
First off, I wonder if the incident happened at all. Even if it did, I am sure the students, in an effort to “please the teacher”, all agreed with him. (And from what I have heard, God help them if they dare contradict the “MOG”!)
IMHO, I believe the incident never really happened. But in his mind, the “stooooorrry” was good for his own teaching purposes - and to have us assume he was truly interested in others’ opinions. I personally think he had his mind made up about this point long before the class even began!
I find it hard to believe he was truly meek enough to listen to what others had to say, unless he recognized it as something “valuable enough to plagiarize for himself”.
You are right, Bob – It was not about us, but about HIM.
SPEC
:)
Edited by spectrum49Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
I find this jaundiced view here a lot and I do understand why. It is hurtful when one’s own view is not even entertained. I’ve felt this often in my educational trek. Scholars in universities (at least in the theological field) often use their students to further their own careers. It’s all about the name, don’t ya know. Religion is cruel.
But in the theological realm there is a starting point and the “inerrancy of scripture” will be where all evangelicals begin. I’d rather call it “the inspiration of the Scriptures” and some day have a rousing discussion on just what inerrancy means, but that’s just me. VP, as many evangelicals, myself included, start with a canon (aka - Scripture). If you start with a “Biblical Research Center”, you of necessity have a “high” view of the texts, do you not. I’m in the same position. I wouldn’t entertain suspicion of Scripture and I’m sure he wouldn’t have either. I don’t consider that a non-research issue. If one wanted to research whether texts WERE Scripture or not, that’s another situation entirely.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
He pulled the entire content of the comma thing from Bullinger's work.
vpw was fond of making up stories, or grabbing other people's life experience
and claiming it for his own.
If you read "TW:LiL", you'll see he'd claimed to "preach to the trees"
when growing up, despite an absence of witnesses and of any PIETY when
growing up. This story was lifted from BILLY GRAHAM's life- Billy did that
to try to overcome shyness.
He also made claims about a pair of imaginary businessmen who were generous
in charity donations while being hated by their community they donated to,
who got things done by sitting alone in a room and THINKING about them
without actually DOING anything about them.
Yes-if something was good enough TO PLAGIARIZE, THEN he listened to it,
otherwise, you might as well not even bother with him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Spec and Wordwolf,
Is the point in the diatribes that VP was disingenuous or is it that the actual doctrine was at fault (read: rhetorical question)? The doctrine was not at fault. The dead are dead. I suppose if people want to debate that we could all start a thread at the “doctrinal” portion of GSC, but I wouldn’t come. It’s like debating the Trinity. Bought the tee shirt, don’t want to get back in line for another one. There are certain things I’ll move on with. Same in any research endeavor...
But I digress; the “nostalgia for TWI research” in this case seems so far away from the discussion; it’s more like there never was any reminiscence, but rather remonstrance. Can we move on from the fact that VP did not footnote or give reference? He was a very selfish man. But the critical issue is whether what he said here was right or not, eh? Or is it that we were so put upon? BTW, this matter over the comma was not something that Bullinger just thought up either. It had centuries of discussion behind it. Read the commentaries.
I remember reading Are the Dead Alive Now? before I got involved in TWI way back in 1973. I had either taken it out of the library at my school or someone had passed it on to me. In the section about Luke 23:43 VP had a reference to a Syriac text that shed some light on the matter. That reading was not known in any of the journals and commentaries that I had read up to that point (not in Bullinger and probably brought to VP's attention by Lamsa??) and it really is in the Syriac text (Charlene, here’s where the Old Syriac and not the PSHTA text family wins out). Point is, VP’s work, whether plagiarized or not, was correct (in this place).
For what its worth.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Robert:
I've participated in enough discussions, doctrinal and otherwise, with WordWolf, to feel comfortable answering a question not directed to me: the point about plagiarism, invented stories and the like is not beside the point. We were in a group that valued one man's opinion about the bible as supreme. Poking holes in that man's methodology and casting doubt upon his veracity and honesty gets us back to the point where we can actually have a discussion about what the text of the bible actually says, rather than what we thought Wierwille said about it.
From your posts, you appear to have a "real" education in biblical research (did you mention University of Chicago at some point?); I for one welcome your insight and look forward to your contribution in doctrinal discussions.
Many of us seem to be more interested in bashing Wierwille and consigning everything he wrote or taught to the "false" pile. I think that you would find that many who engage in what looks to you like diatribe actually agree with Wierwille on some points, but get worked up when PFAL is referenced rather than a section of the bible.
Oak
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Thanks for the reply Oak,
Whether I have some edumacasion will have to be borne out, eh? Yeah, went to U of C after Bible college (Gordon).
I'm wondering whether I should really get too caught up in the doctrinal section. There are still a lot of wounds there and a certain "looking for holes" that can waste a lot of time. Maybe though...maybe.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
the curse of me...i tend to ace the tests and drop out of school..as in twi
feels more like bilbo though...a fool passing through the company of wizards and kings and dwarves and elves
ive probably learned the most simply from having friends who are older than me
sign of the times, i guess
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Hey Bob! Nice posts – Quite a vocabulary you have, sir! Excuse me for sounding ignorant, but I had to look up some words you used:
-----------------------------
edumacasion (edumacation) – seems to be slang for education
disingenuous – lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere
remonstrance – the act of saying or pleading in protest, objection, or disapproval
-----------------------------
I once had a professor who said “Please extinguish the illumination at the termination of activity within this domain”. My friend said, “What?!” I told him, “Turn out the lights when you leave the room.” :unsure:
SPEC
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Workman
Coming to this discussion late, and not having given all 16 pages of this thread the careful reading they deserve, please forgive me if what I am bringing up has already been hashed through.
I believe that there is a major problem with penworks' definition of "research." A definition that I think can be gleaned from one of her posts on this thread:
I think I am safe in assuming -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- that penworks' position is that "inerrancy" is disallowed as a premise in biblical research because it is impossible to prove that the Bible is the Word of God. Which would therefore mean, according to her definition, that to be genuine all research has to be based upon provable premises.
In the main article, she is absolutely correct when she describes what is formally-known as "inductive reasoning," when she writes:
True enough. But the fact remains that ALL research -- although it is carried out via inductive reasoning -- is nevertheless based upon one unprovable premise or another. And that includes ALL scientific research.
Like I said, a "major problem."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Workman,
Is that a "major problem" with Penwork's definition (as you said earlier in your post) or just a "major problem"?
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Welcome to the Cafe, Workman.
just a thought.. the alternative makes one to force "inerrancy" in the bible, where it does not reasonably exist..
look at the lengths gone to in JCOP..
I don't think its a problem unless one makes it one. I think we were trained in the ministry to regard any other options than the bible being a perfect error free document (supposedly in the *original*) to be an attack from the devil spirit world or something..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Actually, inductive reasoning depends on the truthfulness of a base step. Then one shows for any other arbitrary step, one can prove the next one from the last one..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I disagree with your conclusion.
This is what penworks said:
---- inerrancy is a premise that disallows genuine research to be done. Why? Because a person who thinks the scriptures must be perfect will only look at evidence to back up their claim.
She did not say that "all research has to be based on provable premises".
If one were to begin their research with the notion that all scripture is inerrant and that it must all fit together perfectly, one would really be looking for confirmation of what they already believed to be true.
That's not "research", that's rationalization, coupled with cognitive dissonance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Some of the books of the bible, the epistles I think, I've heard means "letters". If I wrote someone a letter, and they stopped to research, or "work it", I'd take it back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
it was never infected. It was genetically inferior to begin with . . . a tree from a line of trees meant for the wood pile.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
If you wish to retain the "tree" analogy, perhaps it would be best described as a pollard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
eh, I think the tree analogy, falls apart eventually . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
One can certainly hope so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
How do you do that link thingy, like you did with the word pollard? I could never figure that out.
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.