What is speculation on my part is thinking that the writers were successful in getting their authoritative canon list to survive the generations following. I am speculating that God's gentle hand was on the process, which is based on many scriptures relating how He and other writers handled their responsibilities. Most of those scriptures I have not yet posted.
What is NOT speculation on my part is noting the documented feelings and desires and activities of the NT writers as the First Century was beginning to close.
All theories are speculations on future knowing, based on past knowing. A good theory can look like nothing but speculation for a while, and then sudden confirmation can come out of the blue.
There is plenty of speculation in the Top-Down approach to the canon as you get closer and closer to the Second and First Centuries, and the physical evidence becomes exceedingly scarce.
So, both approaches have their strengths and their weaknesses. I say a combined approach is best, and can generate the most certainty that the canon we have is worth a life's investment.
I prefer ranch over Bleu cheese with my word salad.
I would be uncomfortable if my sister were dating any dead man.
Since we’re talking hypotheticals and the dead - I should probably be more concerned if my sister was in the way corps and was responsible for seeing to the needs of the president and founder when he visits the campus.
By far the BIGGEST SIMILIARITYI see - and certainly cause for alarm - withwierwille/PFALand Smith/Book of Mormon is the fact that followers of either one of these cults regard their central religious texts (either PFAL or the Book of Mormon) as divinely inspired and equate them as being on par with the same authority as how mainstream Christianity view The Bible . .
A minor differencecan be noted in that wierwille claimed he heard the voice of God saying He would teach wierwille the Word like it had not been known since the 1st century.
Whereas Smith claimed an angel named Maroni appeared to him and said that a collection of ancient writings was buried in a nearby hill in present-day Wayne County, New York, engraved on golden plates by ancient prophets.
Perhaps another minor differencecan be observed in wierwille’s thinly disguised plagiarized material compared to the more creative and some of the unusual historical narratives of the Book of Mormon.
Really good points. Shows what some of these cults have in common. I'm wouldn't be the least bit surprised If wierwille stole fr jw too.
What is speculation on my part is thinking that the writers were successful in getting their authoritative canon list to survive the generations following. I am speculating that God's gentle hand was on the process, which is based on many scriptures relating how He and other writers handled their responsibilities. Most of those scriptures I have not yet posted.
What is NOT speculation on my part is noting the documented feelings and desires and activities of the NT writers as the First Century was beginning to close.
All theories are speculations on future knowing, based on past knowing. A good theory can look like nothing but speculation for a while, and then sudden confirmation can come out of the blue.
There is plenty of speculation in the Top-Down approach to the canon as you get closer and closer to the Second and First Centuries, and the physical evidence becomes exceedingly scarce.
So, both approaches have their strengths and their weaknesses. I say a combined approach is best, and can generate the most certainty that the canon we have is worth a life's investment.
We were taught the standard canon in the PFAL class... in a way.
Back in the 1970s, before students showed up for Session One
they were told to get a KJV Bible and to memorize the books in that Bible.
I think that practice went all the way to 1995, with only minor modifications.
That was our first exposure to the canon, and VPW never challenged that canon, and he only built more and more respect for that canon, all through the duration of the class.
We were taught the standard canon in the PFAL class... in a way.
Back in the 1970s, before students showed up for Session One
they were told to get a KJV Bible and to memorize the books in that Bible.
I think that practice went all the way to 1995, with only minor modifications.
That was our first exposure to the canon, and VPW never challenged that canon, and he only built more and more respect for that canon, all through the duration of the class.
Why weren't "students" told to get a Lamsa Bible, instead of a KJV? It's more accurate, right?
Why weren't "students" told to get a Lamsa Bible, instead of a KJV? It's more accurate, right?
He finds one bible out of a hundred that matches his speculation so now lamsa is the authority. Typical wierwille methodology....goes like this..."I think so and so means such and such...see lamsa says it this way...blah...and bam..cherry picked Bible/verse/faulty intrepretation to suit said speculation.
Lamsa is not a trustworthy source. Kinda like thinking a colander is suitable to hold water
We were taught the standard canon in the PFAL class... in a way.
You teach yoga? You sure stretch a lot of concepts to match what u wanna say. Hopefully u don't stretch coffee though.
This sounds like star wars when Lucas messed up and had Obi Wan tell young Skywalker that Darth Vader murdered his father only to say a couple movies later that was true fr a certain point of view.
Why weren't "students" told to get a Lamsa Bible, instead of a KJV? It's more accurate, right?
Also, how/why was John the Baptizer a weirdo?
12 minutes ago, OldSkool said:
He finds one bible out of a hundred that matches his speculation so now lamsa is the authority. Typical wierwille methodology....goes like this..."I think so and so means such and such...see lamsa says it this way...blah...and bam..cherry picked Bible/verse/faulty intrepretation to suit said speculation.
Lamsa is not a trustworthy source. Kinda like thinking a colander is suitable to hold water
It's backwards logic.
Most of us start with premises which lead to a conclusion: a + b = c.
However, with backward logic, you start with the conclusion, then go searching for the premises to support it.
It was in the Aramaic, I was told, that the word is literally "book house."
Lamsa's Bible has it translated "book carrier."
Lamsa wrote it that way. Lamsa was wrong. It's only considered like that among the "Aramaic primacy" fringe element out there. vpw's adoption of "Aramaic primacy" solely on the basis of being exotic and new and fringe was independent of the truth.
After thousands of hours of work, the twi research team, sweating over Aramaic texts, ended up with different results than Lamsa. Under "Aramaic primacy", that's not supposed to happen. "Aramaic primacy" is error.
Would you feel comfortable if your sister was dating him?
Mike,
you characterized John the Baptizer as "a weirdo." When asked why, you responded with this- which does NOTHING to actually address the question.
What's your criteria for classifying John the Baptizer as "a weirdo"?
As for my sister, she could use interaction with someone as moral as John. He, if he were alive and working on his ministry now, would have no time for dating.
So, why'd you call John the Baptizer "a weirdo", then duck the question when asked why, Mike?
We were taught the standard canon in the PFAL class... in a way.
Back in the 1970s, before students showed up for Session One
they were told to get a KJV Bible and to memorize the books in that Bible.
I think that practice went all the way to 1995, with only minor modifications.
That was our first exposure to the canon, and VPW never challenged that canon, and he only built more and more respect for that canon, all through the duration of the class.
Thank you for confirming that even you consider the instructions accompanying the class to have been vpw's instructions. We've previously brought up that we were told immediately to read "Christians Should Be Prosperous" once that book was added to the pfal curriculum, and we were told- different people in different parts of the country in different decades- to spend several months reading nothing but pfal books.
Those instructions weren't part of the taped class because those books didn't EXIST when the tapes were taped. But vpw gave the orders, and that's how it was. As we all knew and now you've confirmed you know.
He finds one bible out of a hundred that matches his speculation so now lamsa is the authority. Typical wierwille methodology....goes like this..."I think so and so means such and such...see lamsa says it this way...blah...and bam..cherry picked Bible/verse/faulty intrepretation to suit said speculation.
Lamsa is not a trustworthy source. Kinda like thinking a colander is suitable to hold water
It's fascinating how many Bibles Lamsa sold, all to pfal grads who wanted to show other people ONE VERSE in Lamsa's Bible....... a verse that was later shown to be WRONG by twi's own research department!
A lot of people thought twi used Lamsa's instead of the KJV. No, but they sure made up most of the sales of that book....
Maybe it was the camel hair. Maybe it was the locusts and wild homey. (That actually sounds like a delicious and nutritious diet for an ascetic.)
Kools and Drambuie is an objectively disgusting diet - weird would be the polite euphemism here. And the Pez dispenser of Quaaludes? The one-eyed glares of a dirty old man?
Maybe it was the camel hair. Maybe it was the locusts and wild homey. (That actually sounds like a delicious and nutritious diet for an ascetic.)
Kools and Drambuie is an objectively disgusting diet - weird would be the polite euphemism here. And the Pez dispenser of Quaaludes? The one-eyed glares of a dirty old man?
Who's the real weirdo?
That's the thing.
It's an instance of someone needing to malign people in the Bible- all to claim they were all weak and venal- so that vpw could be said to fit in their company. Finding the need to libel people in the Bible just to try to give vpw a free pass is remarkable, and happened here, as you can all see. It's also wildly dishonest, but honesty is of lesser importance to cleaning up vpw's image.
It's an instance of someone needing to malign people in the Bible- all to claim they were all weak and venal- so that vpw could be said to fit in their company. Finding the need to libel people in the Bible just to try to give vpw a free pass is remarkable, and happened here, as you can all see. It's also wildly dishonest, but honesty is of lesser importance to cleaning up vpw's image.
One of the more popular defenses employed is Tu quoque – is a Latin phrase for "you also" - it’s a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke's 1614 stage play The Cittie Gallant as the earliest use of the term in the English language. "Whataboutism" is one particularly well-known modern instance of this technique.From: Wikipedia – tu quoquealso see Wikipedia: whataboutism
This distraction may be employed in any number of ways. A critic may bring up wierwille’s hypocrisy of being prim and proper in public but privately he is a sexual predator or committing other bad behavior. For some unknown reason a wierwille/PFAL devotee will then come to the defense by reminding everyone we are all sinners and therefore in no position to judge wierwille.
An alternate version of this is to bring up King David’s adultery and his attempt to have Uriah killed to cover up his extramarital affair. wierwille himself used a different tact in PFAL – saying technically all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king – a false premise he concocted to justify King David’s actions. It’s a sneaky way to cast King David in the same light as wierwille – as if to say well gee, lookie here, great men of God have always had faults, but God used them anyway.
One needs only to read the Old Testament to see the seriousness of David’s sins and the consequences – even after his sins came to light and David repented. I’ll save you some “research time” by leaving you this hyperlink >Got Questions: David and Bathshebawhich is probably one of the most soap-operatic dramas in the Old Testament – and the article has links to pertinent Scripture.
~ ~ ~ ~
I’m in the middle of drafting a thread-starter about the use of illogical fallacies to promote or defend wierwille/PFAL…hope to see you there soon…I could certainly use your critical eyeballs and the help of the other sharp Grease Spotters on this thread - right now, this future thread is only a gleam in my greasy eyeball.
One of the more popular defenses employed is Tu quoque – is a Latin phrase for "you also" - it’s a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke's 1614 stage play The Cittie Gallant as the earliest use of the term in the English language. "Whataboutism" is one particularly well-known modern instance of this technique.From: Wikipedia – tu quoquealso see Wikipedia: whataboutism
This distraction may be employed in any number of ways. Someone may bring up wierwille’s hypocrisy of being prim and proper in public but privately he is a sexual predator or committing other bad behavior. For some unknown reason a wierwille/PFAL devotee will then come to the defense by reminding everyone we are all sinners and therefore in no position to judge wierwille.
An alternate version of this is to bring up King David’s adultery and his attempt to have Uriah killed to cover up his extramarital affair. wierwille himself used a different tact in PFAL – saying technically all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king – a false premise he concocted to justify King David’s actions. It’s a sneaky way to cast King David in the same light as wierwille – as if to say well gee, lookie here, great men of God have always had faults, but God used them anyway.
One needs only to read the Old Testament to see the seriousness of David’s sins and the consequences – even after his sins came to light and David repented. I’ll save you some “research time” by leaving you this hyperlink >Got Questions: David and Bathshebawhich is probably one of the most soap-operatic dramas in the Old Testament – and the article has links to pertinent Scripture.
~ ~ ~ ~
I’m in the middle of drafting a thread-starter about the use of illogical fallacies to promote or defend wierwille/PFAL…hope to see you there soon…I could certainly use your critical eyeballs and the help of the other sharp Grease Spotters on this thread - which right now is only a gleam in my greasy eyeball.
Thanks for this.
This is a typical defense tactic of NPDs when confronted with the truth of their crimes. I dealt with this for years in my marriage to a narcissist, but I never knew the technical, academic term. It's a deflection tactic. Paired with some gaslighting and some illogical word salad, it can drive a sane, logical, lover of Truth to the brink of delirious, clinical insanity.
It's pure evil. Or, if you prefer, devil seed, spawn of the serpent. I take comfort knowing the Bear Jew is a home run hitter - it's a figger of speech. Just a tremendous truth. A real dandy.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
199
126
90
153
Popular Days
Oct 17
109
Oct 11
87
Oct 15
69
Oct 10
54
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 199 posts
T-Bone 126 posts
OldSkool 90 posts
Nathan_Jr 153 posts
Popular Days
Oct 17 2022
109 posts
Oct 11 2022
87 posts
Oct 15 2022
69 posts
Oct 10 2022
54 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
I haven't been following this thread but had a peek. This whole thread is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the canon of scripture. But I did note the following, originally posted by our
waysider
Ahhh, those were the days.
waysider
Bake 'em away, toys.
Posted Images
OldSkool
I prefer ranch over Bleu cheese with my word salad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Have you ever considered there may be an unseen, mystic force guiding your preference?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
No...but now that u mention it...mystic cheese...yeah...I feel guided now...lmao
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Since we’re talking hypotheticals and the dead - I should probably be more concerned if my sister was in the way corps and was responsible for seeing to the needs of the president and founder when he visits the campus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"There's hamburger all over the highway in Mystic, Connecticut."
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Really good points. Shows what some of these cults have in common. I'm wouldn't be the least bit surprised If wierwille stole fr jw too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
There's another poster here who is more qualified than many to offer an opinion on that if they desire to do so...or not
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Well...hope they chime in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
How/why is JTB a weirdo?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Here is a piece of new material to ponder.
We were taught the standard canon in the PFAL class... in a way.
Back in the 1970s, before students showed up for Session One
they were told to get a KJV Bible and to memorize the books in that Bible.
I think that practice went all the way to 1995, with only minor modifications.
That was our first exposure to the canon, and VPW never challenged that canon, and he only built more and more respect for that canon, all through the duration of the class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm curious, as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Why weren't "students" told to get a Lamsa Bible, instead of a KJV? It's more accurate, right?
Also, how/why was John the Baptizer a weirdo?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
He finds one bible out of a hundred that matches his speculation so now lamsa is the authority. Typical wierwille methodology....goes like this..."I think so and so means such and such...see lamsa says it this way...blah...and bam..cherry picked Bible/verse/faulty intrepretation to suit said speculation.
Lamsa is not a trustworthy source. Kinda like thinking a colander is suitable to hold water
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
You teach yoga? You sure stretch a lot of concepts to match what u wanna say. Hopefully u don't stretch coffee though.
This sounds like star wars when Lucas messed up and had Obi Wan tell young Skywalker that Darth Vader murdered his father only to say a couple movies later that was true fr a certain point of view.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
It's backwards logic.
Most of us start with premises which lead to a conclusion: a + b = c.
However, with backward logic, you start with the conclusion, then go searching for the premises to support it.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Really good point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Lamsa wrote it that way. Lamsa was wrong. It's only considered like that among the "Aramaic primacy" fringe element out there. vpw's adoption of "Aramaic primacy" solely on the basis of being exotic and new and fringe was independent of the truth.
After thousands of hours of work, the twi research team, sweating over Aramaic texts, ended up with different results than Lamsa. Under "Aramaic primacy", that's not supposed to happen. "Aramaic primacy" is error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike,
you characterized John the Baptizer as "a weirdo." When asked why, you responded with this- which does NOTHING to actually address the question.
What's your criteria for classifying John the Baptizer as "a weirdo"?
As for my sister, she could use interaction with someone as moral as John. He, if he were alive and working on his ministry now, would have no time for dating.
So, why'd you call John the Baptizer "a weirdo", then duck the question when asked why, Mike?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Thank you for confirming that even you consider the instructions accompanying the class to have been vpw's instructions. We've previously brought up that we were told immediately to read "Christians Should Be Prosperous" once that book was added to the pfal curriculum, and we were told- different people in different parts of the country in different decades- to spend several months reading nothing but pfal books.
Those instructions weren't part of the taped class because those books didn't EXIST when the tapes were taped. But vpw gave the orders, and that's how it was. As we all knew and now you've confirmed you know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It's fascinating how many Bibles Lamsa sold, all to pfal grads who wanted to show other people ONE VERSE in Lamsa's Bible....... a verse that was later shown to be WRONG by twi's own research department!
A lot of people thought twi used Lamsa's instead of the KJV. No, but they sure made up most of the sales of that book....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Maybe it was the camel hair. Maybe it was the locusts and wild homey. (That actually sounds like a delicious and nutritious diet for an ascetic.)
Kools and Drambuie is an objectively disgusting diet - weird would be the polite euphemism here. And the Pez dispenser of Quaaludes? The one-eyed glares of a dirty old man?
Who's the real weirdo?
Edited by Nathan_JrSnow and gloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That's the thing.
It's an instance of someone needing to malign people in the Bible- all to claim they were all weak and venal- so that vpw could be said to fit in their company. Finding the need to libel people in the Bible just to try to give vpw a free pass is remarkable, and happened here, as you can all see. It's also wildly dishonest, but honesty is of lesser importance to cleaning up vpw's image.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
One of the more popular defenses employed is Tu quoque – is a Latin phrase for "you also" - it’s a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke's 1614 stage play The Cittie Gallant as the earliest use of the term in the English language. "Whataboutism" is one particularly well-known modern instance of this technique. From: Wikipedia – tu quoque also see Wikipedia: whataboutism
This distraction may be employed in any number of ways. A critic may bring up wierwille’s hypocrisy of being prim and proper in public but privately he is a sexual predator or committing other bad behavior. For some unknown reason a wierwille/PFAL devotee will then come to the defense by reminding everyone we are all sinners and therefore in no position to judge wierwille.
An alternate version of this is to bring up King David’s adultery and his attempt to have Uriah killed to cover up his extramarital affair. wierwille himself used a different tact in PFAL – saying technically all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king – a false premise he concocted to justify King David’s actions. It’s a sneaky way to cast King David in the same light as wierwille – as if to say well gee, lookie here, great men of God have always had faults, but God used them anyway.
One needs only to read the Old Testament to see the seriousness of David’s sins and the consequences – even after his sins came to light and David repented. I’ll save you some “research time” by leaving you this hyperlink > Got Questions: David and Bathsheba which is probably one of the most soap-operatic dramas in the Old Testament – and the article has links to pertinent Scripture.
~ ~ ~ ~
I’m in the middle of drafting a thread-starter about the use of illogical fallacies to promote or defend wierwille/PFAL…hope to see you there soon…I could certainly use your critical eyeballs and the help of the other sharp Grease Spotters on this thread - right now, this future thread is only a gleam in my greasy eyeball.
Edited by T-Bonewhat about my editor? him too?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Thanks for this.
This is a typical defense tactic of NPDs when confronted with the truth of their crimes. I dealt with this for years in my marriage to a narcissist, but I never knew the technical, academic term. It's a deflection tactic. Paired with some gaslighting and some illogical word salad, it can drive a sane, logical, lover of Truth to the brink of delirious, clinical insanity.
It's pure evil. Or, if you prefer, devil seed, spawn of the serpent. I take comfort knowing the Bear Jew is a home run hitter - it's a figger of speech. Just a tremendous truth. A real dandy.
So much bull$hit. So much snow.
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.