Im not sure how walt3r C1ummins became the be all authority on all things Bible. Why because vic used to get him to fact check his drivel when he was in front of a crowd? Dog and pony show with that. Yeah, I know, walter is highly educated and probably does some really good work. But name dropping?...cmon.
...Walter told me in 1972 that my structure analysis was one the best handling he had seen by that date, 50 years ago.
I still have not seen what Bullinger says about this very simple structure that I noticed in 2 Timothy, and then again in 2 Peter.
My impression was that I was glossing over the kinds of structure I see Bullinger come up with.
My structure is seen only if you put on a filter, and only look at what Timothy was told to do, and interleaving with Paul mentioning the various attacks of the adversary. I'll bet that Bullinger's structure is far more complicated and detailed.
Not that I am going to disagree with Bullinger if that is the case. I think I was looking at the structure from one special angle, and that's where the structure greatly simplifies.
Well, once again you've managed to shoot your credibility in the foot referencing one of wierwille’s lackeys. I’m supposed to be dazzled that Walter was impressed with your structure analysis – as if that even happened. But on the let’s-pretend-it-really happened argument, I would counter your argument by saying it doesn’t matter because Walter was wierwille’s flunkey - he obsequiouslyperformed the relatively menial albeit conspiratorially necessary task of backing up wierwille’s skewed interpretations of the Bible. Penworks’ bookUndertow: My Escape from the Fundamentalism and Cult Control of The Way Internationalgets into that and … uhm …hold on…
…My subroutine of cognitive skills is registering a temporal anomaly…
…processing…
…processing…
eeyore…eeyore…
…recalibrating…
…recalibrating…
Ah ha and a sis-boom-bah
It’s not a temporal anomaly but a Déjà vu of someone’s diversionary tactics… …when I input the reference to Penworks’ book a subroutine of T-Bone Cognitive Skills must have correlated it with other recorded incidents of your diversionary tactics and my countermeasures to your evasiveness – like this one hereon your2nd wave thread -- hi there, remember us?Coincidentally on that thread we got into a similar discussion about the reliability of the NT docs. And that post of mine referenced another threadPlagiarism on the road to success- here where YOUR comment as you were reading Penworks’ book was:
Mike said:
I have it and am slowly reading it.
My first objection, though, is how she objected to the idea that "the Bible interprets itself."I find that objection very dim witted, even when pumped up with detail like with the posters that attacked it 15 years ago here.It slowed down my reading, but I still intend to finish it. That interpretation issue lowered my expectations and the book's priority in my schedule.
In a nutshell:Imagine how quirky it is for God to issue His Word to communicate to us, but then He FAILS to put cues, keys, and signposts in there to guide sincere seekers.That sounds like a bad way to get a message out.It's like Him saying "I want you to know something but I will not help you understand it."
The phrase "The Bible interprets itself" is an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea.She did not do that justice IMO.The criticism this idea got here 15 years ago I thought was similarly lacking. My impression was that she was leading uninformed readers into thinking God is supposed to be mysterious, an old Catholic idea.Maybe her book will get better later.
If you can recommend a spot to skip ahead to I would appreciate seeing what you feel is an section important to me. – see herefor link to your post
I’m not really impressed with your cursory reading skills and pretentious mumbo jumbo analytics. You don’t have time – or you don’t want to take the time – or you once did have the time and dismissed with prejudice what you saw on The New Testament canon…like your dismissive response to me on that Plagiarism thread – you pulled the same thing here – wanting someone to provide a shortcut by summarizing what’s on those hyperlinks about The New Testament Canon.
I’m really not trying to give you a hard time. Me ...and I think some other Grease Spotters are trying to help you disentangle yourself from – for want of a better description – a problematic mindset. With some of the more detailed explanations you’ve given in this discussion - I am actually hopeful you are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel…And what do I mean by that? I mean at long last you’re referencing someone other than just wierwille and starting to get down to some essential nuts and bolts of a topic.
And to further clarify my hopes: I don’t care what anyone thinks of wierwille, Grease Spot Café, Bullinger…whatever…what I like to see is the Socratic method in play…if everyone tries to be honest and clear we’ll get somewhere in boiling things down to the essential truths, facts, theories, and such.
I’ve been honest and upfront with you. I think very little of wierwille – and it doesn’t matter to me if you or others think the world of him. I’ve been honest and upfront about Bullinger. I like his Companion Bible for certain details like literary structure – but I think some of his a priori assumptions are for the birds. And I can argue the pros and cons of various Bullinger doctrines with the best of them because I’ve done my homework and I know what I’m talking about.
You may ask how will the Socratic method help me?Well Mike, all I can say about that is something I’ve learned from being a technician most of my life. A good technician has an insatiable desire to figure out how something works. I’ve had service calls where I could not diagnose the problem with a system. Sometimes when I get that frustrated, I dissemble the whole thing – at least identify the essential parts. That’s when I might discover a faulty part or bad installation technique by another technician. That’s when I can fix it. I used to train installers and service technicians. I pushed 3 steps - investigate the problem, isolate the problem, eliminate the problem. Sort of like the Socratic method.
If you really want to get your message out to others – first figure out what that message is. If it’s wierwille is a great Bible teacher – well, you might want to zero in on something that’s easier to prove. And if it’s I learned from PFAL the Bible interprets itself – well, don’t pick something that’s impossible to prove either.
I have a high opinion of the Socratic method on Grease Spot because it helps eliminate dubious theories and often boils things down to what essentially matters.
Edited by T-Bone Next to splitting the atom the Socratic method is a pretty powerful force
You lost me.
Where the Aramaic word come from if you don't know it was written in Aramaic?
What does the Greek word translate to? How do we get from "cloak" to "book house"?
Why did you fill the slot with an Aramaic word? Why not Hebrew?
How do you know that was the right word to fit the slot?
So_crates Sez: Where the Aramaic word come from if you don't know it was written in Aramaic?
It came from very old Aramaic manuscripts.
I don't know if 2 Timothy was ORIGINALLY written in Aramaic or not.
I have zero information on what language the original was written in.
I do know there ARE old Aramaic versions of 2 Timothy.
HOW old? I don't know. Old enough to matter, because they may be copies of the originals in Aramaic, but more on this later.
*/*/*/*
So_crates Sez: What does the Greek word translate to? How do we get from "cloak" to "book house"?
I think the best Greek says “cloak” with no controversy.VPW accepted it in the Corps teachings. He commented that it emphasized the humanity of Paul.I am disagreeing with VPW here, I think.
Please remember, outside rare, short conferences with Walter, and once with Bernita, I operated in a scholarly vacuum on this project. It was just me and my KJV. At the beginning, when I found the mother load in 2 Timothy, I was just months from my first PFAL class.
The word “bookhouse” came out of the blue to me. Both Walter and Bernita were eager to tell me about it. I have NO IDEA where they got it. But it fit so well, I took it in and pondered it deeply.
*/*/*/*/*/*
So_crates Sez: Why did you fill the slot with an Aramaic word? Why not Hebrew?
That was all that I was given. I know nothing about languages. In fact I failed French constantly.I hated it.
I am not saying this is the absolute truth; just that it is eye-opening-ly good data to consider.This is not in the collaterals anywhere, not on any tapes I ever heard, and I worked in the Tape Duplicating Dept.
It fits in perfectly with the many other KJV verses I had found prior to that. It wasn’t until I worked at HQ, 1976-78, that I was shown “bookhouse,” and I had been collecting verses for 4 to 5 years by then.I never met Bernita until I worked there.My discovery of the mother load on the NT canon, and first corresponding with Walter, was early in my research, like 1972.
*/*/*/*/*
So_crates Sez: How do you know that was the right word to fit the slot?
I don’t know for sure.I just like it, as I indicated above.
*/*/*/*/*
In red fonts above, I indicated that this word “bookhouse” is merely in some very old Aramaic texts, and those very old Aramaic texts may have been copied from the originals, or something older than what the OLDEST texts of any language were copied from.
This situation comes up in other research areas we were taught.I am going to wing it from memory here.It will be an interesting (to me) test of my memory. Please let me know if I err.
The oldest known manuscripts had words like “…baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit…” in several places in Acts.But looking at the profane writings of Justin Martyr, which are even older than the oldest existing manuscripts, he had to be quoting from EVEN EARLIER manuscripts when he wrote about and quoted from Acts of the Apostles.His quoting the same verses had the baptismal formula “…in the name of Jesus Christ…”I am pretty sure this is in JCNG.See, even I need to review the collaterals regularly.
So it matters not if the Aramaic that contains “bookhouse” is not the oldest known text of 2 Timothy.It is just old, and MAY have been copied from the originals or something extremely early, earlier than the oldest known manuscripts.
Now the reason I gave you all the latest little quiz on the anomaly in Llamsa’s Matt 27 “Eli, Eli” verse is because the answer to that anomaly figures into this little discussion on “bookhouse” and early Aramaic and late Aramaic, and early and late Greek and Hebrew.
It is all a jumble what early texts we have and which texts are more authoritative.Earlier does not necessarily mean more authority, when you realize there was a lot of copying being done back then, as well as a lot of translating.
Has anyone seen the anomaly in the Lamsa text for Matt 27?Parr of this little mystery is why the KJV from the Greek does NOT have the same anomaly.
This anomaly identification may be an IQ test, as well as a Biblical research test. I know all this is pretty complicated.
Well, once again you've managed to shoot your credibility in the foot referencing one of wierwille’s lackeys. I’m supposed to be dazzled that Walter was impressed with your structure analysis – as if that even happened. But on the let’s-pretend-it-really happened argument, I would counter your argument by saying it doesn’t matter because Walter was wierwille’s flunkey - he obsequiouslyperformed the relatively menial albeit conspiratorially necessary task of backing up wierwille’s skewed interpretations of the Bible. Penworks’ bookUndertow: My Escape from the Fundamentalism and Cult Control of The Way Internationalgets into that and … uhm …hold on…
…My subroutine of cognitive skills is registering a temporal anomaly…
…processing…
…processing…
eeyore…eeyore…
…recalibrating…
…recalibrating…
Ah ha and a sis-boom-bah
It’s not a temporal anomaly but a Déjà vu of someone’s diversionary tactics… …when I input the reference to Penworks’ book a subroutine of T-Bone Cognitive Skills must have correlated it with other recorded incidents of your diversionary tactics and my countermeasures to your evasiveness – like this one hereon your2nd wave thread -- hi there, remember us?Coincidentally on that thread we got into a similar discussion about the reliability of the NT docs. And that post of mine referenced another threadPlagiarism on the road to success- here where YOUR comment as you were reading Penworks’ book was:
Mike said:
I have it and am slowly reading it.
My first objection, though, is how she objected to the idea that "the Bible interprets itself."I find that objection very dim witted, even when pumped up with detail like with the posters that attacked it 15 years ago here.It slowed down my reading, but I still intend to finish it. That interpretation issue lowered my expectations and the book's priority in my schedule.
In a nutshell:Imagine how quirky it is for God to issue His Word to communicate to us, but then He FAILS to put cues, keys, and signposts in there to guide sincere seekers.That sounds like a bad way to get a message out.It's like Him saying "I want you to know something but I will not help you understand it."
The phrase "The Bible interprets itself" is an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea.She did not do that justice IMO.The criticism this idea got here 15 years ago I thought was similarly lacking. My impression was that she was leading uninformed readers into thinking God is supposed to be mysterious, an old Catholic idea.Maybe her book will get better later.
If you can recommend a spot to skip ahead to I would appreciate seeing what you feel is an section important to me. – see herefor link to your post
I’m not really impressed with your cursory reading skills and pretentious mumbo jumbo analytics. You don’t have time – or you don’t want to take the time – or you once did have the time and dismissed with prejudice what you saw on The New Testament canon…like your dismissive response to me on that Plagiarism thread – you pulled the same thing here – wanting someone to provide a shortcut by summarizing what’s on those hyperlinks about The New Testament Canon.
I’m really not trying to give you a hard time. Me ...and I think some other Grease Spotters are trying to help you disentangle yourself from – for want of a better description – a problematic mindset. With some of the more detailed explanations you’ve given in this discussion - I am actually hopeful you are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel…And what do I mean by that? I mean at long last you’re referencing someone other than just wierwille and starting to get down to some essential nuts and bolts of a topic.
And to further clarify my hopes: I don’t care what anyone thinks of wierwille, Grease Spot Café, Bullinger…whatever…what I like to see is the Socratic method in play…if everyone tries to be honest and clear we’ll get somewhere in boiling things down to the essential truths, facts, theories, and such.
I’ve been honest and upfront with you. I think very little of wierwille – and it doesn’t matter to me if you or others think the world of him. I’ve been honest and upfront about Bullinger. I like his Companion Bible for certain details like literary structure – but I think some of his a priori assumptions are for the birds. And I can argue the pros and cons of various Bullinger doctrines with the best of them because I’ve done my homework and I know what I’m talking about.
You may ask how will the Socratic method help me?Well Mike, all I can say about that is something I’ve learned from being a technician most of my life. A good technician has an insatiable desire to figure out how something works. I’ve had service calls where I could not diagnose the problem with a system. Sometimes when I get that frustrated, I dissemble the whole thing – at least identify the essential parts. That’s when I might discover a faulty part or bad installation technique by another technician. That’s when I can fix it. I used to train installers and service technicians. I pushed 3 steps - investigate the problem, isolate the problem, eliminate the problem. Sort of like the Socratic method.
If you really want to get your message out to others – first figure out what that message is. If it’s wierwille is a great Bible teacher – well, you might want to zero in on something that’s easier to prove. And if it’s I learned from PFAL the Bible interprets itself – well, don’t pick something that’s impossible to prove either.
I have a high opinion of the Socratic method on Grease Spot because it helps eliminate dubious theories and often boils things down to what essentially matters.
I mentioned that I am very much into logic, but I recognize it has limitations.
One big limitation is the set of Postulates that underlay any logical discussion.
We differ on Postulates. If I were to adopt your Postulates, I'd probably be rapidly agreeing with all your logic.
Postulate selection can, and usually does lean on emotional commitments, like who do you love, Bo Diddly. Who do you hate is another. We all have complicated and differing priorities as to what we love and what we hate. Hence we select differing Postulate sets, and then we have differing logical conclusions.
I mentioned that I am very much into logic, but I recognize it has limitations.
One big limitation is the set of Postulates that underlay any logical discussion.
We differ on Postulates. If I were to adopt your Postulates, I'd probably be rapidly agreeing with all your logic.
Postulate selection can, and usually does lean on emotional commitments, like who do you love, Bo Diddly. Who do you hate is another. We all have complicated and differing priorities as to what we love and what we hate. Hence we select differing Postulate sets, and then we have differing logical conclusions.
Translation: I still idolize all things wierwille to the point of thinking his books are God breathed...you do not...so we arrive at two seperate conclusions.
So_crates Sez: Where the Aramaic word come from if you don't know it was written in Aramaic?
It came from very old Aramaic manuscripts.
I don't know if 2 Timothy was ORIGINALLY written in Aramaic or not.
I have zero information on what language the original was written in.
I do know there ARE old Aramaic versions of 2 Timothy.
HOW old? I don't know. Old enough to matter, because they may be copies of the originals in Aramaic, but more on this later.
So you're playing word games again.
You were asked, straight up, if the passage was written in Aramaic. You said you didn't know. Then suddenly, when the word is brought into question, an Aramaic version appears.
Then you wonder why you're credibility is brought into question.
17 minutes ago, Mike said:
So_crates Sez: What does the Greek word translate to? How do we get from "cloak" to "book house"?
I think the best Greek says “cloak” with no controversy.VPW accepted it in the Corps teachings. He commented that it emphasized the humanity of Paul.I am disagreeing with VPW here, I think.
Please remember, outside rare, short conferences with Walter, and once with Bernita, I operated in a scholarly vacuum on this project. It was just me and my KJV. At the beginning, when I found the mother load in 2 Timothy, I was just months from my first PFAL class.
The word “bookhouse” came out of the blue to me. Both Walter and Bernita were eager to tell me about it. I have NO IDEA where they got it. But it fit so well, I took it in and pondered it deeply.
Didn't you just say the devil whispers in scholars ears and make them think they have good ideas?
What makes you think the devil wasn't whispering in Saint Vic's and Cummings ears?
17 minutes ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*/*/*
So_crates Sez: Why did you fill the slot with an Aramaic word? Why not Hebrew?
That was all that I was given. I know nothing about languages. In fact I failed French constantly.I hated it.
I am not saying this is the absolute truth; just that it is eye-opening-ly good data to consider.This is not in the collaterals anywhere, not on any tapes I ever heard, and I worked in the Tape Duplicating Dept.
Eye opening good data to consider? Isn't that how we got cold fusion?
17 minutes ago, Mike said:
It fits in perfectly with the many other KJV verses I had found prior to that. It wasn’t until I worked at HQ, 1976-78, that I was shown “bookhouse,” and I had been collecting verses for 4 to 5 years by then.I never met Bernita until I worked there.My discovery of the mother load on the NT canon, and first corresponding with Walter, was early in my research, like 1972.
In your mind fits perfectly, whether or not it belongs in the verse yet remains to be seen.
17 minutes ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*/*
So_crates Sez: How do you know that was the right word to fit the slot?
I don’t know for sure.I just like it, as I indicated above.
And I like that there's no renewed mind or Christ in me or agope. To paraphrase someone you know, liking something is no guarantee for truth.
I mentioned that I am very much into logic, but I recognize it has limitations.
One big limitation is the set of Postulates that underlay any logical discussion.
We differ on Postulates. If I were to adopt your Postulates, I'd probably be rapidly agreeing with all your logic.
Postulate selection can, and usually does lean on emotional commitments, like who do you love, Bo Diddly. Who do you hate is another. We all have complicated and differing priorities as to what we love and what we hate. Hence we select differing Postulate sets, and then we have differing logical conclusions.
Please explain what you think are the limitations of logic.
Also, I prefer you don’t try to redefine words and conventional concepts.
Maybe YOU imagine postulate selection leans on emotional commitments. But that’s sounds like mumbo jumbo. Maybe you’re thinking of confirmation bias.
But speaking of theories and postulates I would think a good, valid or legitimate theory is usually simple and postulates clear testable predictions that are NOT refuted by evidence. I’m thinking of Einstein’s special relativity, and theory of general relativity, the Big Bang theory (NOT the TV show. ) for example.
My earlier post mentioning FF Bruce’s book on asking are the NT Docs reliable - i think it’s obvious what Bruce proved through textual criticism (by evidence) refutes wierwille’s goofy “subliminal postulate” that suggested we can’t get back to the original message unless we “work The Word” his way . We don’t need wierwille’s PFAL class to find out what the Word of God really says !!!!
Bruce PROVED the existing ancient NT docs ARE RELIABLE - in other words they are of consistently good quality to be trusted as communicating the original message!
Edited by T-Bone Relative theory = if it’s Thanksgiving my home will be crammed full of family!
You were asked, straight up, if the passage was written in Aramaic. You said you didn't know. Then suddenly, when the word is brought into question, an Aramaic version appears.
Then you wonder why you're credibility is brought into question.
Didn't you just say the devil whispers in scholars ears and make them think they have good ideas?
What makes you think the devil wasn't whispering in Saint Vic's and Cummings ears?
Eye opening good data to consider? Isn't that how we got cold fusion?
In your mind fits perfectly, whether or not it belongs in the verse yet remains to be seen.
And I like that there's no renewed mind or Christ in me or agope. To paraphrase someone you know, liking something is no guarantee for truth.
I was up front and open several times about the uncertainty of what I am reporting. This is unfinished research. Go back and read my admissions, and save your self the accusations.
My credibility here is challenged because I adopt a different Postulate set than yours and others here.
Of course I consider the possibility that I got whispered to, as well as others. That's the reason for continued review and better retaining of the standard for truth, what God gave us via the 1942 promise. You certainly don't get life-betting truth from academic theology and textual criticism.
Yes, my canon theory remains to be seen if it is true; meanwhile it is the best I have to work with.
WHICH REMINDS ME, Nathan_Jr was a tiny bit sloppy in the way he started this thread, and he merely linked it to my theory, which was scattered through the endings of the "Absent Christ?" thread. I need to retrieve my theory pieces and re-write them here in one place.
BTW, my theory does NOT rest on "bookhouse." It is marvelously confirmed by it, if bookhouse is true.
Yes, this is raw research. Not to be taken as doctrine, but almost. It is good enough for me because I went over it's details oodles of times back then, and now one acid test of it is to hold it up to maximum criticism, here.
Please explain what you think are the limitations of logic.
Also, I prefer you don’t try to redefine words and conventional concepts.
Maybe YOU imagine postulate selection leans on emotional commitments. But that’s sounds like mumbo jumbo. Maybe you’re thinking of confirmation bias.
But speaking of theories and postulates I would think a good, valid or legitimate theory is usually simple and postulates clear testable predictions that are NOT refuted by evidence. I’m thinking of Einstein’s special relativity, and theory of general relativity, the Big Bang theory (NOT the TV show. ) for example.
My earlier post mentioning FF Bruce’s book on asking are the NT Docs reliable - i think it’s obvious what Bruce proved through textual criticism (by evidence) refutes wierwille’s goofy “subliminal postulate” that suggested we can’t get back to the original message unless we “work The Word” his way . We don’t need wierwille’s PFAL class to find out what the Word of God really says !!!!
Bruce PROVED the existing ancient NT docs ARE RELIABLE - in other words they are of consistently good quality to be trusted as communicating the original message!
31 minutes ago, T-Bone said:
Please explain what you think are the limitations of logic.
.It was Kurt Godel who showed the limitations to the cleanest logic known: math
He did this in 1933. His proofs are (or maybe were) regarded as the most difficult ideas in Western Civilization. As a result he and Einstein became neighbors and buddies.
There are a few Godel fans here. We've discussed him before here.
Also, I prefer you don’t try to redefine words and conventional concepts.
.Please let me know when I do that, and I will consider it. Right now I don't exactly know what you mean, specifically.
Maybe YOU imagine postulate selection leans on emotional commitments. But that’s sounds like mumbo jumbo. Maybe you’re thinking of confirmation bias.
.No, confirmation bias happens in the proof stages or even later. I am talking about the beginning, Postulate stages. Think Euclidean Geometry with proofs and theorems and Postulates. I explained this to WW a couple days ago, probably in the absent Christ thread.
But speaking of theories and postulates I would think a good, valid or legitimate theory is usually simple and postulates clear testable predictions that are NOT refuted by evidence. I’m thinking of Einstein’s special relativity, and theory of general relativity, the Big Bang theory (NOT the TV show. ) for example.
.Yes. My canon theory is actually VERY simple. I will soon re-write it here.
The bookhouse stuff is not so simple.
My earlier post mentioning FF Bruce’s book on asking are the NT Docs reliable - i think it’s obvious what Bruce proved through textual criticism (by evidence) refutes wierwille’s goofy “subliminal postulate” that suggested we can’t get back to the original message unless we “work The Word” his way . We don’t need wierwille’s PFAL class to find out what the Word of God really says !!!!
.No! It was not that. exactly.
He taught us that the adversary had made difficult passaages that gave us sureness and power over him. It was subtle.
He also taught us that we can get back to SOME of the originals by working the keys taught, and even including some academic research at times. But to get back to the FULLNESS of what the First Century believers had, it would require the assistance of God Almighty, which he had. God taught Dr and Dr taught us.
Bruce PROVED the existing ancient NT docs ARE RELIABLE - in other words they are of consistently good quality to be trusted as communicating the original message!
.Yes, I think VPW said something like 80% of what was reconstructed by the academics was available to us and accurate.
It's the fullness and power that God wanted us to have, minus the debilitating errors in tradition like JC=God, the dead are alive, new birth can be lost by sin, and a few other ringers.
I was up front and open several times about the uncertainty of what I am reporting. This is unfinished research. Go back and read my admissions, and save your self the accusations
Did you or did you not answer Nate's question by stating you didn't know if it was written in Aramaic? Did I not comment on how is it possible to reference an Aramaic word if you don't know whether or not the passage was written in Aramaic? Did you then not suddenly produce a reference where the passage was written in Aramaic?
How does the above game relate to being up front and open about the uncertainty of what you reporting.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
My credibility here is challenged because I adopt a different Postulate set than yours and others here.
Aren't you the lucky one? Now you have a ready made excuse for any feedback you receive. Go off the deep end. They don't like my postulates. Give us the wrong information. They don't like my postulates. State something that sounds totally off the wall. They don't like my postulates.
I know your postulates. They boil down to God chose a cheating alcoholic rake to give a revision of the bible to. Despite all the evil Saint Vic did God allowed him to live in grace and gave him a pass.
So what's this tell all of us trying to follow God's principles? Like I told you before why should we even bother with the bible and PLAF if your postulates are true? Why not get born again and follow Saint Vic's example and live grace?
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Of course I consider the possibility that I got whispered to, as well as others. That's the reason for continued review and better retaining of the standard for truth, what God gave us via the 1942 promise. You certainly don't get life-betting truth from academic theology and textual criticism.
I didn't get life betting truth from PLAF either. As I told before, I wasted 40 years of my life following those principles. So spare me the hype.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Yes, my canon theory remains to be seen if it is true; meanwhile it is the best I have to work with.
WHICH REMINDS ME, Nathan_Jr was a tiny bit sloppy in the way he started this thread, and he merely linked it to my theory, which was scattered through the endings of the "Absent Christ?" thread. I need to retrieve my theory pieces and re-write them here in one place.
BTW, my theory does NOT rest on "bookhouse." It is marvelously confirmed by it, if bookhouse is true.
Never thought it did. But if you're this far in left field just out of the gate...
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Yes, this is raw research. Not to be taken as doctrine, but almost. It is good enough for me because I went over it's details oodles of times back then, and now one acid test of it is to hold it up to maximum criticism, here.
I figure that's what your purpose was for being here. You come up with these theories and beta test them here.
Did you or did you not answer Nate's question by stating you didn't know if it was written in Aramaic? Did I not comment on how is it possible to reference an Aramaic word if you don't know whether or not the passage was written in Aramaic? Did you then not suddenly produce a reference where the passage was written in Aramaic?
How does the above game relate to being up front and open about the uncertainty of what you reporting.
Aren't you the lucky one? Now you have a ready made excuse for any feedback you receive. Go off the deep end. They don't like my postulates. Give us the wrong information. They don't like my postulates. State something that sounds totally off the wall. They don't like my postulates.
I know your postulates. They boil down to God chose a cheating alcoholic rake to give a revision of the bible to. Despite all the evil Saint Vic did God allowed him to live in grace and gave him a pass.
So what's this tell all of us trying to follow God's principles? Like I told you before why should we even bother with the bible and PLAF if your postulates are true? Why not get born again and follow Saint Vic's example and live grace?
I didn't get life betting truth from PLAF either. As I told before, I wasted 40 years of my life following those principles. So spare me the hype.
Never thought it did. But if you're this far in left field just out of the gate...
I figure that's what your purpose was for being here. You come up with these theories and beta test them here.
So_Crates wrote: Did you or did you not answer Nate's question by stating you didn't know if it was written in Aramaic? I stated (hopefully with clear writing) that I do not know if 2 Timothy was ORIGINALLY written in Aramaic.I know there is an old Aramaic text that has 2 Timothy, because it appears in Llamsa’s translation.His ancient text is just old, as far as I know, like from the olden days.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: Did I not comment on how is it possible to reference an Aramaic word if you don't know whether or not the passage was written in Aramaic? Did you then not suddenly produce a reference where the passage was written in Aramaic?
You may be thinking here of my quoting the Llamsa Bible for Matt 27.I quoted his English text here.
Do you see what happened?Are you satisfied on this point?
I don’t get where you were going with that, but it seems you missed the idea that I don’t know ANYTHING about the originals of 2 Timothy.All I know about the Aramaic that I mentioned on this thread is that Walter and Bernita told me about one word in their Aramaic texts, and then I posted a verse from Llamsa’s NT.
*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: How does the above game relate to being up front and open about the uncertainty of what you reporting.
LoLThe above game was you trying to catch me in a contradiction, I think, but you were basing it on your misunderstanding of what I said.
*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: 2 hours ago, Mike said: My credibility here is challenged because I adopt a different Postulate set than yours and others here.
Aren't you the lucky one? Now you have a ready made excuse for any feedback you receive. Go off the deep end. They don't like my postulates. Give us the wrong information. They don't like my postulates. State something that sounds totally off the wall. They don't like my postulates. I guess I could say that, but why? I need not excuse myself from you folks for anything. I am trying to teach something here, not defend myself in a court.If I pled the 5th that would be equally stupid and not good teaching technique.
I know you don’t like my Postulates from your distant remote viewing.But if you try them out again, you might like them better, AND then you can see how logical I am being as I logically build on them. Try coming back to PFAL and see what happens.
*/*/*/*/**
So_Crates wrote: I know your postulates….
I can sense that you do, at least some of them.
The big reason I mention Postulates is so that YOU can become better aware of yours.What is your base?What do you assume at the start of everything?What is your god?Do you know?
*/*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: So what's this tell all of us trying to follow God's principles? Like I told you before why should we even bother with the bible and PLAF if your postulates are true? Why not get born again and follow Saint Vic's example and live grace?
No rewards in that. I follow the Lord not VPW.The Lord taught VPW, he taught me.I filtered out his sin.
Did you at one time think he was sinless, or like a saint?I saw LOTS of grads idolize him that way and other ways.They had a GREAT disappointment when the idol crashed to the ground.
Is that what happened to you?Did you have unrealistically inflated expectations of VPW goodness, later saw your expectations crumble and you were crushed, and now you have unrealistically inflated expectations of VPW’s sin.
*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: 2 hours ago, Mike said: Of course I consider the possibility that I got whispered to, as well as others. That's the reason for continued review and better retaining of the standard for truth, what God gave us via the 1942 promise. You certainly don't get life-betting truth from academic theology and textual criticism.
*/*/*/*/*/*/
So_Crates wrote: I didn't get life betting truth from PLAF either. As I told before, I wasted 40 years of my life following those principles. So spare me the hype.
If there was NEVER a time that you did get life betting truth from PFAL, then why did you stay for 40 years?I saw lots of weak believers who stayed for social reasons.I did that some of the times, when I was drifting into weakness and doubt.But I kept trying again, and eventually I saw enough to bet my life on it, solidly, and not just socially.
*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: 2 hours ago, Mike said: Yes, my canon theory remains to be seen if it is true; meanwhile it is the best I have to work with….
*/*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: 2 hours ago, Mike said: Yes, this is raw research. Not to be taken as doctrine, but almost. It is good enough for me because I went over it's details oodles of times back then, and now one acid test of it is to hold it up to maximum criticism, here.
*/*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: I figure that's what your purpose was for being here. You come up with these theories and beta test them here.
No, I think this is the very first one of my beta tests, here.I did 2 threads on the mirror reversal riddle (one is deleted), but that wasn’t beta testing my solution.I had tested the solution for years prior.You might say I beta tested different ways to explain the solution. After that I wrote and finished a little booklet on it. But as I remember, I think I did the mirror riddle to calm people down when the Mike Wars got bad.
Please explain what you think are the limitations of logic.
.It was Kurt Godel who showed the limitations to the cleanest logic known: math
He did this in 1933. His proofs are (or maybe were) regarded as the most difficult ideas in Western Civilization. As a result he and Einstein became neighbors and buddies.
There are a few Godel fans here. We've discussed him before here.
Also, I prefer you don’t try to redefine words and conventional concepts.
.Please let me know when I do that, and I will consider it. Right now I don't exactly know what you mean, specifically.
Maybe YOU imagine postulate selection leans on emotional commitments. But that’s sounds like mumbo jumbo. Maybe you’re thinking of confirmation bias.
.No, confirmation bias happens in the proof stages or even later. I am talking about the beginning, Postulate stages. Think Euclidean Geometry with proofs and theorems and Postulates. I explained this to WW a couple days ago, probably in the absent Christ thread.
But speaking of theories and postulates I would think a good, valid or legitimate theory is usually simple and postulates clear testable predictions that are NOT refuted by evidence. I’m thinking of Einstein’s special relativity, and theory of general relativity, the Big Bang theory (NOT the TV show. ) for example.
.Yes. My canon theory is actually VERY simple. I will soon re-write it here.
The bookhouse stuff is not so simple.
My earlier post mentioning FF Bruce’s book on asking are the NT Docs reliable - i think it’s obvious what Bruce proved through textual criticism (by evidence) refutes wierwille’s goofy “subliminal postulate” that suggested we can’t get back to the original message unless we “work The Word” his way . We don’t need wierwille’s PFAL class to find out what the Word of God really says !!!!
.No! It was not that. exactly.
He taught us that the adversary had made difficult passaages that gave us sureness and power over him. It was subtle.
He also taught us that we can get back to SOME of the originals by working the keys taught, and even including some academic research at times. But to get back to the FULLNESS of what the First Century believers had, it would require the assistance of God Almighty, which he had. God taught Dr and Dr taught us.
Bruce PROVED the existing ancient NT docs ARE RELIABLE - in other words they are of consistently good quality to be trusted as communicating the original message!
.Yes, I think VPW said something like 80% of what was reconstructed by the academics was available to us and accurate.
It's the fullness and power that God wanted us to have, minus the debilitating errors in tradition like JC=God, the dead are alive, new birth can be lost by sin, and a few other ringers.
Edited by Mike
the reformatting of the above quote within a quote is below
1.Mike said: .It was Kurt Godel who showed the limitations to the cleanest logic known: mathHe did this in 1933. His proofs are (or maybe were) regarded as the most difficult ideas in Western Civilization. As a result he and Einstein became neighbors and buddies. There are a few Godel fans here. We've discussed him before here.
T-Bone’s response:Hold up! What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? How about for homework YOU do some Googling on the internet and learn the difference between Mathematical logic and philosophical logic and maybe you’ll make some sense in this discussion.
~ ~ ~ ~
2.Mike said: .Please let me know when I do that, and I will consider it. Right now I don't exactly know what you mean, specifically.
T-Bone: you meanlike earlierwhen you wereattempting to redefine logic and standard ideas to explain something. (see above point 1) Sure! I’ll keep calling attention to it like I’ve been doing.
~ ~ ~ ~
3.Mike said:No, confirmation bias happens in the proof stages or even later. I am talking about the beginning, Postulate stages. Think Euclidean Geometry with proofs and theorems and Postulates. I explained this to WW a couple days ago, probably in the absent Christ thread.
T-Bone’s response:whoop whoop the redefining alarm has been activated! oh hey, Mike – you’re doing it right now - again!Ah man, this is surreal. This was covered in points 1 & 2 – see above
~ ~ ~ ~
4.Mike said: .Yes. My canon theory is actually VERY simple. I will soon re-write it here.
The bookhouse stuff is not so simple.
T-Bone’s response: whatever…I won’t hold my breath waiting…uhm...your canon theory doesn’t involve a Ouija board or using your Advanced Class nametag swinging-pendant style does it? You can answer yes...no...yes...no...ask the swinging Advanced Class nametag...yes...no...
~ ~ ~ ~
5.Mike said: .No! It was not that. exactly.
He taught us that the adversary had made difficult passaages that gave us sureness and power over him. It was subtle.He also taught us that we can get back to SOME of the originals by working the keys taught, and even including some academic research at times. But to get back to the FULLNESS of what the First Century believers had, it would require the assistance of God Almighty, which he had. God taught Dr and Dr taught us.
T-Bone’s response: there you go scurrying back to your security blanket – wierwille. Right there is your number one postulate – you assume “God taught Dr and Dr taught us”. That’s what a postulate is - in verb form it means to suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief; in noun form it means a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief. You’ve just revealed the basis for your beliefs! Don’t kid me with talk of how much you’ve figured stuff out on your own and verified wierwille’s PFAL stuff was accurate and practical. You just managed to shoot your credibility in your other foot – oh my gosh you’re de-feeted!
~ ~ ~ ~
6.Mike said: …I think VPW said something like 80% of what was reconstructed by the academics was available to us and accurate.
T-Bone’s response:who cares what wierwille said?!?! He also said he took everything he could take from Moody Bible Institute via correspondence courses – and we know that’s a bold-faced lie! I’ve got the letter from the registrar’s office to prove it and wave it high with investigative pride every chance I get…but I must be honest - I’m rushing through this reply to you so I can get back to watching another episode of The West Wing with my wife – so you can hunt for that doc on Grease Spot using its search feature or go to my profile under albums > blast from the past.
~ ~ ~ ~
7.Mike said: It's the fullness and power that God wanted us to have, minus the debilitating errors in tradition like JC=God, the dead are alive, new birth can be lost by sin, and a few other ringers.
T-Bone’s response: “minus the debilitating errors in tradition like JC=God” ?!?! what the hell does that mean?!?!Hey, if you’re going to throw in senseless and inflammatory remarks would you please post them in the appropriate thread. I’ve already challenged you to participate in the Trinity – asset or liability? thread started by johniam…the darndest thing – as of right now I’ve got 67 posts filled to overflowing with Biblical, theological, philosophical, linguistic arguments that address the profound doctrine of the Trinity…Even though it appears johniam started the thread to trash Trinitarians and promote his favorite con artist – he only posted a handful of replies and the “best” ammo he had for attack-mode was a post saying wierwille was 7th in line of whatever and the other silly post was referring to the Omen film series. You should come join that discussion – you and him have a lot in common…come on…it’ll be fun.
that's all for now...I'm off to watch more West Wing
Edited by T-Bone he was very philosophical about hating the logic in math
1.Mike said: .It was Kurt Godel who showed the limitations to the cleanest logic known: mathHe did this in 1933. His proofs are (or maybe were) regarded as the most difficult ideas in Western Civilization. As a result he and Einstein became neighbors and buddies. There are a few Godel fans here. We've discussed him before here.
T-Bone’s response:Hold up! What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? How about for homework YOU do some Googling on the internet and learn the difference between Mathematical logic and philosophical logic and maybe you’ll make some sense in this discussion.
I only have time right now for one or two items. Maybe more later.
If you identify your favorite item, I'll try that next.
What Godel showed, much to the consternation of the math world was that there were mathematical statements that are TRUE, but that CANNOT be proved or derived. They can be found, and noticed to always seem true, but they can't IN PRINCIPLE be proved. If this is true for the clean world of math truths, it is even more true for the messy world's "life's truths." We can get told certain truths, as in revelation, but we can't prove them.
This means logic can only take you so far, and then your are stranded.
Accepting the possibility of true revelations from God is necessary to see the world of truths, most fully.
But I mentioned this Godel stuff is only ONE aspect of the pitfalls of logic. The other pitfall I mentioned are hidden Postulates. It is scary to tinker with one's Postulates. It's the unknown, and maybe even blasphemous. But a good searcher, researcher, seeker of truth will be brave and want to know what hidden assumptions (or Postulates) underlay their thinking.
So_Crates wrote: Did you or did you not answer Nate's question by stating you didn't know if it was written in Aramaic? I stated (hopefully with clear writing) that I do not know if 2 Timothy was ORIGINALLY written in Aramaic.I know there is an old Aramaic text that has 2 Timothy, because it appears in Llamsa’s translation.His ancient text is just old, as far as I know, like from the olden days.
Nate asked if the original was written in Aramaic, you responded you didn't know. So you can see how my error was made. However, if you were attempting to be clear, you would have mentioned the Llamsa translation.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: Did I not comment on how is it possible to reference an Aramaic word if you don't know whether or not the passage was written in Aramaic? Did you then not suddenly produce a reference where the passage was written in Aramaic?
You may be thinking here of my quoting the Llamsa Bible for Matt 27.I quoted his English text here.
No, I'm thinking of the whole 2 Timothy discussion.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
Do you see what happened?Are you satisfied on this point?
I have reservations about using a Aramaic word based on the fact you like it. Other than that...
2 hours ago, Mike said:
I don’t get where you were going with that, but it seems you missed the idea that I don’t know ANYTHING about the originals of 2 Timothy.All I know about the Aramaic that I mentioned on this thread is that Walter and Bernita told me about one word in their Aramaic texts, and then I posted a verse from Llamsa’s NT.
All the more reason to question the validity of that word.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: How does the above game relate to being up front and open about the uncertainty of what you reporting.
LoLThe above game was you trying to catch me in a contradiction, I think, but you were basing it on your misunderstanding of what I said.
You were expecting me to swallow the whole thing without any critical thinking? Dream on. This isn't PLAF and you're not Saint Vic. Isn't that why the class was three or four hours long? To lull our critical thinking into a slumber.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: 2 hours ago, Mike said: My credibility here is challenged because I adopt a different Postulate set than yours and others here.
Aren't you the lucky one? Now you have a ready made excuse for any feedback you receive. Go off the deep end. They don't like my postulates. Give us the wrong information. They don't like my postulates. State something that sounds totally off the wall. They don't like my postulates. I guess I could say that, but why? I need not excuse myself from you folks for anything. I am trying to teach something here, not defend myself in a court.If I pled the 5th that would be equally stupid and not good teaching technique.
And that's the crux of the problem: the difference between "sharing" and "teaching." Sharing you do with people on an equal level. Teaching means you want to be boss.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
I know you don’t like my Postulates from your distant remote viewing.But if you try them out again, you might like them better,
Ah, thee promises of a con man. Give it one more chance it'll be different.
The promises of an abusive spouse, give me another chance, I promise it'll be different.
Mike, from what people say here you haven't changed in 20 years. Now, if you haven't changed, why should I believe things will be different?
2 hours ago, Mike said:
AND then you can see how logical I am being as I logically build on them. Try coming back to PFAL and see what happens.
I know what'll happen: little Saint Vic's like you will try to lord over people. You'll promise wonders and we'll get blunders. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, I'm using as a dust mop.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*/**
So_Crates wrote: I know your postulates….
I can sense that you do, at least some of them.
The big reason I mention Postulates is so that YOU can become better aware of yours.What is your base?What do you assume at the start of everything?What is your god?Do you know?
Back at you. Clyde. What is your God? Do you know? From everything you told me your God is PLAF.
My God isn't a what its a who. And He doesn't entrust cheating drunken rakes with important revelations.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: So what's this tell all of us trying to follow God's principles? Like I told you before why should we even bother with the bible and PLAF if your postulates are true? Why not get born again and follow Saint Vic's example and live grace?
No rewards in that. I follow the Lord not VPW.The Lord taught VPW, he taught me.I filtered out his sin.
Did you at one time think he was sinless, or like a saint?I saw LOTS of grads idolize him that way and other ways.They had a GREAT disappointment when the idol crashed to the ground.
Is that what happened to you?Did you have unrealistically inflated expectations of VPW goodness, later saw your expectations crumble and you were crushed, and now you have unrealistically inflated expectations of VPW’s sin.
No, I had unrealistic expectations of what the ministry promised what the class would do for me. Something like what you're trying to do now.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: 2 hours ago, Mike said: Of course I consider the possibility that I got whispered to, as well as others. That's the reason for continued review and better retaining of the standard for truth, what God gave us via the 1942 promise. You certainly don't get life-betting truth from academic theology and textual criticism.
*/*/*/*/*/*/
So_Crates wrote: I didn't get life betting truth from PLAF either. As I told before, I wasted 40 years of my life following those principles. So spare me the hype.
If there was NEVER a time that you did get life betting truth from PFAL, then why did you stay for 40 years?
Because I believed what people like you told me about the class. If it doesn't work hang in there, they promised, it'll get better. Yha, sure. I got the number of the truck that hit me that time.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
I saw lots of weak believers who stayed for social reasons.I did that some of the times, when I was drifting into weakness and doubt.But I kept trying again, and eventually I saw enough to bet my life on it, solidly, and not just socially.
Sorry doesn't work that way for me. Out of the 40 years I think I was in the ministry attending fellowship maybe 6 years.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: 2 hours ago, Mike said: Yes, my canon theory remains to be seen if it is true; meanwhile it is the best I have to work with….
*/*/*/*/*/*So_Crates wrote: 2 hours ago, Mike said: Yes, this is raw research. Not to be taken as doctrine, but almost. It is good enough for me because I went over it's details oodles of times back then, and now one acid test of it is to hold it up to maximum criticism, here.
*/*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: I figure that's what your purpose was for being here. You come up with these theories and beta test them here.
No, I think this is the very first one of my beta tests, here.I did 2 threads on the mirror reversal riddle (one is deleted), but that wasn’t beta testing my solution.I had tested the solution for years prior.You might say I beta tested different ways to explain the solution. After that I wrote and finished a little booklet on it. But as I remember, I think I did the mirror riddle to calm people down when the Mike Wars got bad.
I figure you're trying to get your own splinter groupm started and this is where you come tom find holes in your reasoning you you can try to plug them
I only have time right now for one or two items. Maybe more later.
If you identify your favorite item, I'll try that next.
What Godel showed, much to the consternation of the math world was that there were mathematical statements that are TRUE, but that CANNOT be proved or derived. They can be found, and noticed to always seem true, but they can't IN PRINCIPLE be proved. If this is true for the clean world of math truths, it is even more true for the messy world's "life's truths." We can get told certain truths, as in revelation, but we can't prove them.
This means logic can only take you so far, and then your are stranded.
Accepting the possibility of true revelations from God is necessary to see the world of truths, most fully.
But I mentioned this Godel stuff is only ONE aspect of the pitfalls of logic. The other pitfall I mentioned are hidden Postulates. It is scary to tinker with one's Postulates. It's the unknown, and maybe even blasphemous. But a good searcher, researcher, seeker of truth will be brave and want to know what hidden assumptions (or Postulates) underlay their thinking.
Mike said: I only have time right now for one or two items. Maybe more later. If you identify your favorite item, I'll try that next.
T-Bone’s response: It really doesn’t matter to me, Mike – I’m not a big fan of you going all over the map about the value of nonsense. So – you can pick one thing that is appropriate to this discussion on the NT canon- and please, please, please don’t whip out one of your stream-of-consciousness-disorganized-and-confused-roadmaps to nowhere.
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike said: What Godel showed, much to the consternation of the math world was that there were mathematical statements that are TRUE, but that CANNOT be proved or derived.They can be found, and noticed to always seem true, but they can't IN PRINCIPLE be proved.If this is true for the clean world of math truths, it is even more true for the messy world's "life's truths."
T-Bone’s response: Yikes! You’re still going on about the price of Kool-Aid in China…well…this bears repeating: that really doesn’t matter to me, Mike – I’m not a big fan of you going all over the map about the value of nonsense. Please talk about something appropriate to this discussion on the NT canon- and please, please,please don’t whip out one of your stream-of-consciousness-disorganized-and-confused- roadmaps to nowhere.
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike said: We can get told certain truths, as in revelation, but we can't prove them. This means logic can only take you so far, and then your are stranded. Accepting the possibility of true revelations from God is necessary to see the world of truths, most fully.
T-Bone’s response: Here’s the thing, Mike. I have a hard time taking you seriously – because you come off like a child who finds big words on the internet – he doesn’t really understand what they mean but he tosses together a word salad and thinks he can carry on a meaningful conversation with adults.
I suggested you Google the difference between mathematical logic and philosophical logic. But did you do that? Noooooo! You reply back pretty quick using some big words again.
I don’t know why I’m even having this talking-passed-each-other-conversation with you right now…maybe part of the reason is I’m a softie and I tend to have compassion for someone who seems to be trapped in a particular mindset like I was…definitely part of why I engage in these discussions is the sheer pleasure of the Socratic method…I like to explore and learn…but I’m not stupid…actions speak louder than words…and often I can’t decide if you say stuff to just get a reaction from others…or run a reconfigured wierwille-idea up the flagpole and check out the response…or maybe there’s a slim chance you want out of a debilitating mindset – and so if it’s truly that - I’ll throw you a bone on the pursuit of truth.
Sorry folks - sort of off-topic - but in a sideways connection it’s relevant to the NT canon in that the truth or falsity of the ancient NT docs being reliable is determined only by how consistently good in quality it is to communicate the original message. That was the essence of Bruce’s book.
Scientific truth and mathematical truth give us no criteria for metaphysical truth. Therefore, what is needed is another definition of truth for the metaphysical realm. In reading up on philosophy, I lean toward one theory of what truth is – it’s calledthe correspondence theory of truth “In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.”FromWikipedia: correspondence theory of truth ....and remember it's just a THEORY !!!!
So basically, truth consists in some form of connection…correlation…resemblance…agreement between a belief and a fact. For me, this gets into how I look at the Bible – and there’s a lot of ways to look at the Bible – even as a Christian.
I believe the Bible is metaphysical truth (metaphysical = in a transcendent sense or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses) – that it is a revelation from God – written by people inspired of God. Considering that people are not perfect, have worldviews shaped by their times and culture, I think the Bible is best understood as metaphysical truth and not as scientific truth – it’s not written or laid out like a textbook. But consider the opening passage of the Bible - “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”…Now I can use the correspondence theory of truth, and reason that Genesis 1:1might very well correlate with the big bang theory…but that’s just my opinion I could be wrong. ...it's my best guess...that's all I know
The big bang theory is one of scientists’ best guess on how the universe began – it is “the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution… the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning (typically named "the Big Bang singularity")” (fromWikipedia: Big Bang)
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike, at the end of your post you talked about some truths that cannot be proved. That’s right. God, Jesus Christ, heaven cannot be proved. Our logic can only take us so far. There is so much we don’t know. And like you said it is scary to tinker with one's Postulates.It's the unknown, and maybe even blasphemous.But a good searcher, researcher, seeker of truth will be brave and want to know what hidden assumptions (or Postulates) underlay their thinking. That’s what critical thinking is all about. And for a Christian there’s the twofold challenge: faith seeking understanding and understanding seeking faith.
Mike, from what people say here you haven't changed in 20 years. Now, if you haven't changed, why should I believe things will be different?
I haven't changed my message.
But I have heeded my own message and have had a MUCH better time with just the reading materials, unsupervised. The over-supervision of the ministry started, to the best of my observation ability at the time, right after Craig started in 1982, and then went into overdrive as VPW was fading. What I saw was an enormous competition among volunteer Corps people for salaried positions. This led to more rules and supervision. This all melted down in 1986 with Geer, and within months the ministry divided into 3 main groups of Corps, still looking for that salary.
I was pulling back from all this, and felt free to experiment, which I did unsupervised for 10 years. That was 1998 and I returned to read the collaterals for 20 years. Now I am applying what I learned to Bible versions, and local fellowshipping with other casual proPFAL people. It is starting to resemble what I saw in the unsupervised fellowships of the Groovey Rye Christians, which I was a part of.
Now I see another wave of people coming back to PFAL to work with it without all the baggage of 37 years ago. It's a different world than the one you probably had a right to resent. A LOT of things went wrong. Some of us are devoted to fixing the problems, and not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I just looked at Llamsa’s handling of 2 Timothy 4:13
Where the word “cloak” usually is,
Llamsa renders the word “book carrier.”
I had never looked there before. :)
Not trying to straw man you here mike. It is worth considering who the people are/were who translated anything. Im not saying Llamsa is totally worthless as I think a lot can be gleaned from him culturally, etc. However, it's important to note what his beliefs were and if his beliefs affected his translation. Please read along:
Lamsa’s distrust of anything Greek and his personal presuppositions also produced bias and error in his translation.
On the surface Lamsa appeared to regard all of the Bible highly. However, he distinguishes between the authoritative teachings of Jesus and what he considered to be the inferior doctrine of His disciples. The apostles, he claims, were unduly influenced by Jewish religion, traditions, laws, and practices, and so reveal human weaknesses in what they wrote.
Lamsa says some Scriptures were lost and others were destroyed (e.g., burned) or rejected because they were “contrary to the new doctrines and dogmas” adopted at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.43 He says certain passages were “deliberately forged” and added to the books of the Bible.44 The Greek texts as well as subsequent Bible versions, he adds, are corrupted by mistranslations and contradictions due to ignorant translators and the texts’ transition from Aramaic to Greek, Greek to Latin, and Latin to English.45 Lamsa also asserts that the two oldest biblical manuscripts known today are Pedangta Aramaic texts from the fifth and seventh centuries, making Greek texts appear to be later and corrupt.46 Thus, despite Lamsa’s superficial respect for the Bible, he distrusts, condemns, and changes portions of it.
Scholars universally agree that the New Testament was written in Greek and that we now possess scores of manuscripts which were written before the Pedangta. Most pastors have copies of the Greek New Testament (the UBS or Nestle-Aland text) which compiles readings of several hundred old manuscripts in Greek, Aramaic, and other languages. The reader can refer to this to find the names, content, dates of production, and current location of these texts. Their dates are determined by many factors, so a claim made by Lamsa47 that deceitful translators cut the dates out of texts to make them appear older is false. Most contemporary versions (NIV, NAS, etc.) translate the UBS text directly into English (or another language), so Lamsa’s assertion that the Bible was corrupted by being translated from Greek to Latin to English is inaccurate.
This Nestle-Aland Greek text does cite Syriac manuscripts where the readings are valuable for reference. Lamsa, on the other hand, follows only the Pedangta, ignoring the many earlier Greek and Old Syriac texts. However, since the Pedangta does not include the books of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation, Lamsa had to use later Syriac texts, risking corruption due to age. Even if the Pedangta had all the books, it would still be flawed because it is not an original or even a new translation of the Greek into Aramaic, but is a late fourth century revision of superior Old Syriac versions.48 Therefore, one of several weaknesses in Lamsa’s translation is the blemished Pedangta on which it is based.
Mistranslations
At the time Lamsa began to translate, popular contemporary versions such as the New International Version and Today’s English Version (Good News Bible) had not yet been published. Hence, part of the popularity of Lamsa’s version was due to its clear style and clarification of some of the obscurities in the King James Version.
Lamsa’s version does offer some insight into Aramaic words and idioms in the Bible. However, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin idioms are also common in the Bible, so the reader benefits most by acquaintance with all four of these cultures and languages. Lamsa’s understanding of Scripture is warped by his insistence on using Aramaic alone and his assumption that his twentieth century Iranian Syriac exactly matches fifth century Pedangta Aramaic.
The most disturbing feature of the Lamsa Bible is that he often allows his theology and opinions to dictate his renderings. For example, he does not believe that people personally live after death, so he inserts the word “death” in places the writer used “sleep” (1 Cor. 15:6,18,20). Most passages which refer to the Trinity and Christ’s deity are left intact, but Lamsa changes the wording of John 1:18, Acts 20:28, Micah 5:2, and Hebrews 7:3 because they contradict his Nestorian presuppositions. His anti-Greek bias shows as he repeatedly replaces references to “Greeks” with “Arameans.”
Tying this topic back to the way international, the foundational class used to place a divine emphasis on the order the Church epistles and also saying that the book count was off because the devil caused the book number to be 66....guess thats a bad combination of numbers? I mean , I get 666 cause we are told to reckon it...anywho....
I think it's fair to say that the order of the books of the Bible, including the Church epistles are not divinely inspired but are somewhat arbitrary, depending on the culture and time period in question with some standardization along the way. The arbitrary part is our current order of books that traces back to Jerome. Before Jerome the following seems to shed some light historically
1. THE LAW : The Pentateuch (Five Books of Moses)
Five books are in this group:
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
(Note: These titles are as found in our English Bibles, as adapted from the Greek Septuagint (LXX). The Hebrew titles used the first word of each book (actually a Scroll) as the name. For example, Genesis would be called Beredangh which means (In)Beginning (of). The Septuagint titles emphasized a perceived major subject. Most Jewish Bibles also use now the subject titles.)
2. THE PROPHETS
Six (combined) books are in this group:
Joshua & Judges
Samuel and Kings ('Books of the Kingdom')
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
The Twelve (Minor Prophets)
The Twelve, so-called minor prophets, are as follows:
This group contained 11 books known also as the holy writings. Some have called them the 'Royal' or 'Government' group because many of the authors are royalty or of royal lineage, or high government officials.
Psalms
Proverbs
Job
Song of Songs
Ruth
Lamentations
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Daniel
Ezra/Nehemiah
Chronicles
.
Quote
New Testament:
4. THE NEW TESTAMENT 'PENTATEUCH' : The Gospels and Acts
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
5. THE GENERAL EPISTLES
There are seven of epistles not written by the Apostle Paul, and they come next
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
6. THE PAULINE EPISTLES
This group has 14 books including the Book Hebrews which is somewhat linked to Paul. Early tradition says that Paul wrote Hebrews, but some believe that the writing style was so different that perhaps Timothy or someone else wrote it.
But I have heeded my own message and have had a MUCH better time with just the reading materials, unsupervised. The over-supervision of the ministry started, to the best of my observation ability at the time, right after Craig started in 1982, and then went into overdrive as VPW was fading. What I saw was an enormous competition among volunteer Corps people for salaried positions. This led to more rules and supervision. This all melted down in 1986 with Geer, and within months the ministry divided into 3 main groups of Corps, still looking for that salary.
I was pulling back from all this, and felt free to experiment, which I did unsupervised for 10 years. That was 1998 and I returned to read the collaterals for 20 years. Now I am applying what I learned to Bible versions, and local fellowshipping with other casual proPFAL people. It is starting to resemble what I saw in the unsupervised fellowships of the Groovey Rye Christians, which I was a part of.
Now I see another wave of people coming back to PFAL to work with it without all the baggage of 37 years ago. It's a different world than the one you probably had a right to resent. A LOT of things went wrong. Some of us are devoted to fixing the problems, and not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
So what have you found went wrong and what are you personally devoted to fixing?
Doesn't that closed mind you praised a few pages back get in the way?
For the BOD the ministry was a money machine, all your pretty much telling me is that they're running out of cash and are scrambling to mind a way to keep the cash cow providing milk, hence the push, from even you, for nostalgia.
Unfortunately, you don't realize for many of us attending the class was an ordeal. Many of us got off work and had just enough time to eat before we were due at class. So the end of the class for many of us wasn't joy, it was relief that the ordeal was over.
Not trying to straw man you here mike. It is worth considering who the people are/were who translated anything. Im not saying Llamsa is totally worthless as I think a lot can be gleaned from him culturally, etc. However, it's important to note what his beliefs were and if his beliefs affected his translation. Please read along:
I think it's fair to say that the order of the books of the Bible, including the Church epistles are not divinely inspired but are somewhat arbitrary,
I would generally agree with that.
But I never heard of TWI concerns about the number of OT books.
Because of (1) the invariant order of the Church Epistles, and (2) Peter referring to ALL of Paul's Epistles, and (3) from the scripture party that Paul set up at the end of 2 Timothy, it is obvious that those Epistles were gathered together under Paul's supervision at a very early date.... like AD 67 ?
I am confident that the general pattern for the Biblical writers was each writer who received revelation to write for God, also had the revelation as to whom the writing should be delivered. Decent and in order, in other words. This is the main part of my canon theory.
I saw this pattern elsewhere in my KJV search long ago.
So what have you found went wrong and what are you personally devoted to fixing?
Doesn't that closed mind you praised a few pages back get in the way?
For the BOD the ministry was a money machine, all your pretty much telling me is that they're running out of cash and are scrambling to mind a way to keep the cash cow providing milk, hence the push, from even you, for nostalgia.
Unfortunately, you don't realize for many of us attending the class was an ordeal. Many of us got off work and had just enough time to eat before we were due at class. So the end of the class for many of us wasn't joy, it was relief that the ordeal was over.
So what have you found went wrong and what are you personally devoted to fixing?
Lots is documented here at GSC as to what went wrong.
I have a folder and am collecting items to bring to TWI leaders’ attention.They already know about most of them. Some things they seem to not be aware of, and I am slowly bringing them up. The survivors of Craig and Rosalee have learned a lot of things in the past 37 years, and I can learn from them also.
I am slowly pressing for written notices or memos as to what old policies are out and what new policies are in.In tech industry these are called ECNs for Engineering Change Notices.
One important ECN that I am looking into writing myself regards that “old wineskins” stuff from Craig in the 1990s.I hear that some nooks and crannies in TWI have not gotten the memo to dump that policy, so it needs to be put in writing and sent to all leaders, like they do in industry.
I’d also like to see an ECN that endorses the John Scheonheit paper on adultery, or at least a full working of that paper’s contents, and a few appropriate ECNs could be issued.
Things like these ECNs have to respect the new people who are just starting out in the Word.How they are distributed needs to be decent and in order.
It may be also necessary that these ECNs will have to be written and distributed into the ministry from private sources and not from the official ministry leaders to avoid lawsuits. The leaders would have to cooperate, but remain officially disconnected from them.
Maybe we can start a thread for suggestions on ECNs.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Doesn't that closed mind you praised a few pages back get in the way?
LoL
Did you get the impression that I think a closed mind is good at all times and with all topics?I don’t.It is good for some things, some of the time. I can turn it on and off like a switch.
We all do this when we watch a fiction movie, especially with comedy and science fiction.When we switch on the movie, we switch off our critical thinking skills and enjoy the film. We open our mind to it. Then, when it is over we switch that open mind off.
*/*/*/*/*
For the BOD the ministry was a money machine, all your pretty much telling me is that they're running out of cash and are scrambling to mind a way to keep the cash cow providing milk, hence the push, from even you, for nostalgia.
I’m not pushing any nostalgia. I want to see them move closer to the collaterals and mastering them. The longtime leaders have a good working knowledge of them now.
I somewhat get that impression, that they are short of cash, but I can plainly see more that they are a little overwhelmed with work in other countries, especially Africa.
One of my suggestions, if cash really is a problem, is to sell the campus properties they don’t need.Selling all of them should even be considered. I am not nostalgic for the properties.It is the teaching that God did that is most valuable.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Unfortunately, you don't realize for many of us attending the class was an ordeal. Many of us got off work and had just enough time to eat before we were due at class. So the end of the class for many of us wasn't joy, it was relief that the ordeal was over.
.Yes, I went thru that in the 1970s, and it could be arduous at times. The infliction of lots of rules from HQ was not good. Some of them were good for new people, but the Corps way of doing things got way out of hand, and mass production overtook quality by the mid 1980s.
The local leaders I get to hang lately with are very casual, reasonable, and not at all in the Corps Nazi mold that ruined things.
*/*/*
I’m wondering how you did with SIT.Was it fun?Do you still do it?
So what have you found went wrong and what are you personally devoted to fixing?
Lots is documented here at GSC as to what went wrong.
I have a folder and am collecting items to bring to TWI leaders’ attention.They already know about most of them. Some things they seem to not be aware of, and I am slowly bringing them up. The survivors of Craig and Rosalee have learned a lot of things in the past 37 years, and I can learn from them also.
I am slowly pressing for written notices or memos as to what old policies are out and what new policies are in.In tech industry these are called ECNs for Engineering Change Notices.
In other words, nothing has really changed they're still discussing it.
42 minutes ago, Mike said:
One important ECN that I am looking into writing myself regards that “old wineskins” stuff from Craig in the 1990s.I hear that some nooks and crannies in TWI have not gotten the memo to dump that policy, so it needs to be put in writing and sent to all leaders, like they do in industry.
I’d also like to see an ECN that endorses the John Scheonheit paper on adultery, or at least a full working of that paper’s contents, and a few appropriate ECNs could be issued.
Things like these ECNs have to respect the new people who are just starting out in the Word.How they are distributed needs to be decent and in order.
It may be also necessary that these ECNs will have to be written and distributed into the ministry from private sources and not from the official ministry leaders to avoid lawsuits. The leaders would have to cooperate, but remain officially disconnected from them.
Maybe we can start a thread for suggestions on ECNs.
I didn't mean what you'd like to see or what could change, I meant what changes have you specifically worked on. So far your telling me there are no real changes, just a lot of future faking, i.e, maybe perhaps we'll change at some future date, if we feel like it.
42 minutes ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*/*
Doesn't that closed mind you praised a few pages back get in the way?
LoL
Did you get the impression that I think a closed mind is good at all times and with all topics?I don’t.It is good for some things, some of the time. I can turn it on and off like a switch.
We all do this when we watch a fiction movie, especially with comedy and science fiction.When we switch on the movie, we switch off our critical thinking skills and enjoy the film. We open our mind to it. Then, when it is over we switch that open mind off.
That's not closing your mind, that's suspension of disbelief. And even that's a very gossamer quality, very easy to break. All it takes is little things like too many shots fired out of a revolver or a continually error. A closed mind however is very hard to open. Even when confronted with reason it will insist on staying closed.
42 minutes ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*/*
For the BOD the ministry was a money machine, all your pretty much telling me is that they're running out of cash and are scrambling to mind a way to keep the cash cow providing milk, hence the push, from even you, for nostalgia.
I’m not pushing any nostalgia. I want to see them move closer to the collaterals and mastering them. The longtime leaders have a good working knowledge of them now.
Really, you're not pushing nostalgia. Then what's all this remember the joy you felt when you first took the class business?
42 minutes ago, Mike said:
I somewhat get that impression, that they are short of cash, but I can plainly see more that they are a little overwhelmed with work in other countries, especially Africa.
One of my suggestions, if cash really is a problem, is to sell the campus properties they don’t need.Selling all of them should even be considered. I am not nostalgic for the properties.It is the teaching that God did that is most valuable.
Yah, Saint Vic really followed that didn't he? That's why he had all those secular toys: a motorcycle collection, a classic car. All teaching that God is most valuable.
42 minutes ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*/*/
Unfortunately, you don't realize for many of us attending the class was an ordeal. Many of us got off work and had just enough time to eat before we were due at class. So the end of the class for many of us wasn't joy, it was relief that the ordeal was over.
.Yes, I went thru that in the 1970s, and it could be arduous at times. The infliction of lots of rules from HQ was not good. Some of them were good for new people, but the Corps way of doing things got way out of hand, and mass production overtook quality by the mid 1980s.
The local leaders I get to hang lately with are very casual, reasonable, and not at all in the Corps Nazi mold that ruined things.
Well, as I told you many times in the past, your not the standard. I'm sure it's the same old same old elsewhere.
42 minutes ago, Mike said:
*/*/*
I’m wondering how you did with SIT.Was it fun?
Fun? That's an odd word for praying. I first stated SITting at a Rock, I was up all night SITting.
42 minutes ago, Mike said:
Do you still do it?
Occasionally, although I don't know if it does any good.
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
Mike
I was ASKED to drop a name bigger than me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Well, once again you've managed to shoot your credibility in the foot referencing one of wierwille’s lackeys. I’m supposed to be dazzled that Walter was impressed with your structure analysis – as if that even happened. But on the let’s-pretend-it-really happened argument, I would counter your argument by saying it doesn’t matter because Walter was wierwille’s flunkey - he obsequiously performed the relatively menial albeit conspiratorially necessary task of backing up wierwille’s skewed interpretations of the Bible. Penworks’ book Undertow: My Escape from the Fundamentalism and Cult Control of The Way International gets into that and … uhm …hold on…
…My subroutine of cognitive skills is registering a temporal anomaly…
…processing…
…processing…
eeyore…eeyore…
…recalibrating…
…recalibrating…
Ah ha and a sis-boom-bah
It’s not a temporal anomaly but a Déjà vu of someone’s diversionary tactics… …when I input the reference to Penworks’ book a subroutine of T-Bone Cognitive Skills must have correlated it with other recorded incidents of your diversionary tactics and my countermeasures to your evasiveness – like this one here on your 2nd wave thread -
- 
hi there, remember us? Coincidentally on that thread we got into a similar discussion about the reliability of the NT docs. And that post of mine referenced another thread Plagiarism on the road to success - here where YOUR comment as you were reading Penworks’ book was:
Mike said:
I have it and am slowly reading it.
My first objection, though, is how she objected to the idea that "the Bible interprets itself." I find that objection very dim witted, even when pumped up with detail like with the posters that attacked it 15 years ago here. It slowed down my reading, but I still intend to finish it. That interpretation issue lowered my expectations and the book's priority in my schedule.
In a nutshell: Imagine how quirky it is for God to issue His Word to communicate to us, but then He FAILS to put cues, keys, and signposts in there to guide sincere seekers. That sounds like a bad way to get a message out. It's like Him saying "I want you to know something but I will not help you understand it."
The phrase "The Bible interprets itself" is an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea. She did not do that justice IMO. The criticism this idea got here 15 years ago I thought was similarly lacking. My impression was that she was leading uninformed readers into thinking God is supposed to be mysterious, an old Catholic idea. Maybe her book will get better later.
If you can recommend a spot to skip ahead to I would appreciate seeing what you feel is an section important to me. – see here for link to your post
I’m not really impressed with your cursory reading skills and pretentious mumbo jumbo analytics. You don’t have time – or you don’t want to take the time – or you once did have the time and dismissed with prejudice what you saw on The New Testament canon…like your dismissive response to me on that Plagiarism thread – you pulled the same thing here – wanting someone to provide a shortcut by summarizing what’s on those hyperlinks about The New Testament Canon.
I’m really not trying to give you a hard time. Me ...and I think some other Grease Spotters are trying to help you disentangle yourself from – for want of a better description – a problematic mindset. With some of the more detailed explanations you’ve given in this discussion - I am actually hopeful you are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel…And what do I mean by that? I mean at long last you’re referencing someone other than just wierwille and starting to get down to some essential nuts and bolts of a topic.
And to further clarify my hopes: I don’t care what anyone thinks of wierwille, Grease Spot Café, Bullinger…whatever…what I like to see is the Socratic method in play…if everyone tries to be honest and clear we’ll get somewhere in boiling things down to the essential truths, facts, theories, and such.
I’ve been honest and upfront with you. I think very little of wierwille – and it doesn’t matter to me if you or others think the world of him. I’ve been honest and upfront about Bullinger. I like his Companion Bible for certain details like literary structure – but I think some of his a priori assumptions are for the birds. And I can argue the pros and cons of various Bullinger doctrines with the best of them because I’ve done my homework and I know what I’m talking about.
You may ask how will the Socratic method help me? Well Mike, all I can say about that is something I’ve learned from being a technician most of my life. A good technician has an insatiable desire to figure out how something works. I’ve had service calls where I could not diagnose the problem with a system. Sometimes when I get that frustrated, I dissemble the whole thing – at least identify the essential parts. That’s when I might discover a faulty part or bad installation technique by another technician. That’s when I can fix it. I used to train installers and service technicians. I pushed 3 steps - investigate the problem, isolate the problem, eliminate the problem. Sort of like the Socratic method.
If you really want to get your message out to others – first figure out what that message is. If it’s wierwille is a great Bible teacher – well, you might want to zero in on something that’s easier to prove. And if it’s I learned from PFAL the Bible interprets itself – well, don’t pick something that’s impossible to prove either.
I have a high opinion of the Socratic method on Grease Spot because it helps eliminate dubious theories and often boils things down to what essentially matters.
Edited by T-BoneNext to splitting the atom the Socratic method is a pretty powerful force
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
So_crates Sez: Where the Aramaic word come from if you don't know it was written in Aramaic?
It came from very old Aramaic manuscripts.
I don't know if 2 Timothy was ORIGINALLY written in Aramaic or not.
I have zero information on what language the original was written in.
I do know there ARE old Aramaic versions of 2 Timothy.
HOW old? I don't know. Old enough to matter, because they may be copies of the originals in Aramaic, but more on this later.
*/*/*/*
So_crates Sez: What does the Greek word translate to? How do we get from "cloak" to "book house"?
I think the best Greek says “cloak” with no controversy. VPW accepted it in the Corps teachings. He commented that it emphasized the humanity of Paul. I am disagreeing with VPW here, I think.
Please remember, outside rare, short conferences with Walter, and once with Bernita, I operated in a scholarly vacuum on this project. It was just me and my KJV. At the beginning, when I found the mother load in 2 Timothy, I was just months from my first PFAL class.
The word “bookhouse” came out of the blue to me. Both Walter and Bernita were eager to tell me about it. I have NO IDEA where they got it. But it fit so well, I took it in and pondered it deeply.
*/*/*/*/*/*
So_crates Sez: Why did you fill the slot with an Aramaic word? Why not Hebrew?
That was all that I was given. I know nothing about languages. In fact I failed French constantly. I hated it.
I am not saying this is the absolute truth; just that it is eye-opening-ly good data to consider. This is not in the collaterals anywhere, not on any tapes I ever heard, and I worked in the Tape Duplicating Dept.
It fits in perfectly with the many other KJV verses I had found prior to that. It wasn’t until I worked at HQ, 1976-78, that I was shown “bookhouse,” and I had been collecting verses for 4 to 5 years by then. I never met Bernita until I worked there. My discovery of the mother load on the NT canon, and first corresponding with Walter, was early in my research, like 1972.
*/*/*/*/*
So_crates Sez: How do you know that was the right word to fit the slot?
I don’t know for sure. I just like it, as I indicated above.
*/*/*/*/*
In red fonts above, I indicated that this word “bookhouse” is merely in some very old Aramaic texts, and those very old Aramaic texts may have been copied from the originals, or something older than what the OLDEST texts of any language were copied from.
This situation comes up in other research areas we were taught. I am going to wing it from memory here. It will be an interesting (to me) test of my memory. Please let me know if I err.
The oldest known manuscripts had words like “…baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit…” in several places in Acts. But looking at the profane writings of Justin Martyr, which are even older than the oldest existing manuscripts, he had to be quoting from EVEN EARLIER manuscripts when he wrote about and quoted from Acts of the Apostles. His quoting the same verses had the baptismal formula “…in the name of Jesus Christ…” I am pretty sure this is in JCNG. See, even I need to review the collaterals regularly.
So it matters not if the Aramaic that contains “bookhouse” is not the oldest known text of 2 Timothy. It is just old, and MAY have been copied from the originals or something extremely early, earlier than the oldest known manuscripts.
Now the reason I gave you all the latest little quiz on the anomaly in Llamsa’s Matt 27 “Eli, Eli” verse is because the answer to that anomaly figures into this little discussion on “bookhouse” and early Aramaic and late Aramaic, and early and late Greek and Hebrew.
It is all a jumble what early texts we have and which texts are more authoritative. Earlier does not necessarily mean more authority, when you realize there was a lot of copying being done back then, as well as a lot of translating.
Has anyone seen the anomaly in the Lamsa text for Matt 27? Parr of this little mystery is why the KJV from the Greek does NOT have the same anomaly.
This anomaly identification may be an IQ test, as well as a Biblical research test. I know all this is pretty complicated.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I mentioned that I am very much into logic, but I recognize it has limitations.
One big limitation is the set of Postulates that underlay any logical discussion.
We differ on Postulates. If I were to adopt your Postulates, I'd probably be rapidly agreeing with all your logic.
Postulate selection can, and usually does lean on emotional commitments, like who do you love, Bo Diddly. Who do you hate is another. We all have complicated and differing priorities as to what we love and what we hate. Hence we select differing Postulate sets, and then we have differing logical conclusions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Translation: I still idolize all things wierwille to the point of thinking his books are God breathed...you do not...so we arrive at two seperate conclusions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So you're playing word games again.
You were asked, straight up, if the passage was written in Aramaic. You said you didn't know. Then suddenly, when the word is brought into question, an Aramaic version appears.
Then you wonder why you're credibility is brought into question.
Didn't you just say the devil whispers in scholars ears and make them think they have good ideas?
What makes you think the devil wasn't whispering in Saint Vic's and Cummings ears?
Eye opening good data to consider? Isn't that how we got cold fusion?
In your mind fits perfectly, whether or not it belongs in the verse yet remains to be seen.
And I like that there's no renewed mind or Christ in me or agope. To paraphrase someone you know, liking something is no guarantee for truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Please explain what you think are the limitations of logic.
Also, I prefer you don’t try to redefine words and conventional concepts.
Maybe YOU imagine postulate selection leans on emotional commitments. But that’s sounds like mumbo jumbo. Maybe you’re thinking of confirmation bias.
But speaking of theories and postulates I would think a good, valid or legitimate theory is usually simple and postulates clear testable predictions that are NOT refuted by evidence. I’m thinking of Einstein’s special relativity, and theory of general relativity, the Big Bang theory (NOT the TV show.
) for example.
My earlier post mentioning FF Bruce’s book on asking are the NT Docs reliable - i think it’s obvious what Bruce proved through textual criticism (by evidence) refutes wierwille’s goofy “subliminal postulate” that suggested we can’t get back to the original message unless we “work The Word” his way . We don’t need wierwille’s PFAL class to find out what the Word of God really says !!!!
Bruce PROVED the existing ancient NT docs ARE RELIABLE - in other words they are of consistently good quality to be trusted as communicating the original message!
Edited by T-BoneRelative theory = if it’s Thanksgiving my home will be crammed full of family!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I was up front and open several times about the uncertainty of what I am reporting. This is unfinished research. Go back and read my admissions, and save your self the accusations.
My credibility here is challenged because I adopt a different Postulate set than yours and others here.
Of course I consider the possibility that I got whispered to, as well as others. That's the reason for continued review and better retaining of the standard for truth, what God gave us via the 1942 promise. You certainly don't get life-betting truth from academic theology and textual criticism.
Yes, my canon theory remains to be seen if it is true; meanwhile it is the best I have to work with.
WHICH REMINDS ME, Nathan_Jr was a tiny bit sloppy in the way he started this thread, and he merely linked it to my theory, which was scattered through the endings of the "Absent Christ?" thread. I need to retrieve my theory pieces and re-write them here in one place.
BTW, my theory does NOT rest on "bookhouse." It is marvelously confirmed by it, if bookhouse is true.
Yes, this is raw research. Not to be taken as doctrine, but almost. It is good enough for me because I went over it's details oodles of times back then, and now one acid test of it is to hold it up to maximum criticism, here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Did you or did you not answer Nate's question by stating you didn't know if it was written in Aramaic? Did I not comment on how is it possible to reference an Aramaic word if you don't know whether or not the passage was written in Aramaic? Did you then not suddenly produce a reference where the passage was written in Aramaic?
How does the above game relate to being up front and open about the uncertainty of what you reporting.
Aren't you the lucky one? Now you have a ready made excuse for any feedback you receive. Go off the deep end. They don't like my postulates. Give us the wrong information. They don't like my postulates. State something that sounds totally off the wall. They don't like my postulates.
I know your postulates. They boil down to God chose a cheating alcoholic rake to give a revision of the bible to. Despite all the evil Saint Vic did God allowed him to live in grace and gave him a pass.
So what's this tell all of us trying to follow God's principles? Like I told you before why should we even bother with the bible and PLAF if your postulates are true? Why not get born again and follow Saint Vic's example and live grace?
I didn't get life betting truth from PLAF either. As I told before, I wasted 40 years of my life following those principles. So spare me the hype.
Never thought it did. But if you're this far in left field just out of the gate...
I figure that's what your purpose was for being here. You come up with these theories and beta test them here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
So_Crates wrote: Did you or did you not answer Nate's question by stating you didn't know if it was written in Aramaic?
I stated (hopefully with clear writing) that I do not know if 2 Timothy was ORIGINALLY written in Aramaic. I know there is an old Aramaic text that has 2 Timothy, because it appears in Llamsa’s translation. His ancient text is just old, as far as I know, like from the olden days.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: Did I not comment on how is it possible to reference an Aramaic word if you don't know whether or not the passage was written in Aramaic? Did you then not suddenly produce a reference where the passage was written in Aramaic?
You may be thinking here of my quoting the Llamsa Bible for Matt 27. I quoted his English text here.
Do you see what happened? Are you satisfied on this point?
I don’t get where you were going with that, but it seems you missed the idea that I don’t know ANYTHING about the originals of 2 Timothy. All I know about the Aramaic that I mentioned on this thread is that Walter and Bernita told me about one word in their Aramaic texts, and then I posted a verse from Llamsa’s NT.
*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: How does the above game relate to being up front and open about the uncertainty of what you reporting.
LoL The above game was you trying to catch me in a contradiction, I think, but you were basing it on your misunderstanding of what I said.
*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: 2 hours ago, Mike said:
My credibility here is challenged because I adopt a different Postulate set than yours and others here.
Aren't you the lucky one? Now you have a ready made excuse for any feedback you receive. Go off the deep end. They don't like my postulates. Give us the wrong information. They don't like my postulates. State something that sounds totally off the wall. They don't like my postulates.
I guess I could say that, but why? I need not excuse myself from you folks for anything. I am trying to teach something here, not defend myself in a court. If I pled the 5th that would be equally stupid and not good teaching technique.
I know you don’t like my Postulates from your distant remote viewing. But if you try them out again, you might like them better, AND then you can see how logical I am being as I logically build on them. Try coming back to PFAL and see what happens.
*/*/*/*/**
So_Crates wrote: I know your postulates….
I can sense that you do, at least some of them.
The big reason I mention Postulates is so that YOU can become better aware of yours. What is your base? What do you assume at the start of everything? What is your god? Do you know?
*/*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: So what's this tell all of us trying to follow God's principles? Like I told you before why should we even bother with the bible and PLAF if your postulates are true? Why not get born again and follow Saint Vic's example and live grace?
No rewards in that. I follow the Lord not VPW. The Lord taught VPW, he taught me. I filtered out his sin.
Did you at one time think he was sinless, or like a saint? I saw LOTS of grads idolize him that way and other ways. They had a GREAT disappointment when the idol crashed to the ground.
Is that what happened to you? Did you have unrealistically inflated expectations of VPW goodness, later saw your expectations crumble and you were crushed, and now you have unrealistically inflated expectations of VPW’s sin.
*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: 2 hours ago, Mike said:
Of course I consider the possibility that I got whispered to, as well as others. That's the reason for continued review and better retaining of the standard for truth, what God gave us via the 1942 promise. You certainly don't get life-betting truth from academic theology and textual criticism.
*/*/*/*/*/*/
So_Crates wrote: I didn't get life betting truth from PLAF either. As I told before, I wasted 40 years of my life following those principles. So spare me the hype.
If there was NEVER a time that you did get life betting truth from PFAL, then why did you stay for 40 years? I saw lots of weak believers who stayed for social reasons. I did that some of the times, when I was drifting into weakness and doubt. But I kept trying again, and eventually I saw enough to bet my life on it, solidly, and not just socially.
*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: 2 hours ago, Mike said:
Yes, my canon theory remains to be seen if it is true; meanwhile it is the best I have to work with….
*/*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: 2 hours ago, Mike said:
Yes, this is raw research. Not to be taken as doctrine, but almost. It is good enough for me because I went over it's details oodles of times back then, and now one acid test of it is to hold it up to maximum criticism, here.
*/*/*/*/*/*
So_Crates wrote: I figure that's what your purpose was for being here. You come up with these theories and beta test them here.
No, I think this is the very first one of my beta tests, here. I did 2 threads on the mirror reversal riddle (one is deleted), but that wasn’t beta testing my solution. I had tested the solution for years prior. You might say I beta tested different ways to explain the solution. After that I wrote and finished a little booklet on it. But as I remember, I think I did the mirror riddle to calm people down when the Mike Wars got bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
the reformatting of the above quote within a quote is below
1. Mike said: .It was Kurt Godel who showed the limitations to the cleanest logic known: math He did this in 1933. His proofs are (or maybe were) regarded as the most difficult ideas in Western Civilization. As a result he and Einstein became neighbors and buddies. There are a few Godel fans here. We've discussed him before here.
T-Bone’s response: Hold up! What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? How about for homework YOU do some Googling on the internet and learn the difference between Mathematical logic and philosophical logic and maybe you’ll make some sense in this discussion.
~ ~ ~ ~
2. Mike said: .Please let me know when I do that, and I will consider it. Right now I don't exactly know what you mean, specifically.
T-Bone: you mean like earlier when you were attempting to redefine logic and standard ideas to explain something. (see above point 1) Sure! I’ll keep calling attention to it like I’ve been doing.
~ ~ ~ ~
3. Mike said: No, confirmation bias happens in the proof stages or even later. I am talking about the beginning, Postulate stages. Think Euclidean Geometry with proofs and theorems and Postulates. I explained this to WW a couple days ago, probably in the absent Christ thread.
T-Bone’s response: whoop whoop the redefining alarm has been activated!
oh hey, Mike – you’re doing it right now - again! Ah man, this is surreal. This was covered in points 1 & 2 
– see above
~ ~ ~ ~
4. Mike said: .Yes. My canon theory is actually VERY simple. I will soon re-write it here.
The bookhouse stuff is not so simple.
T-Bone’s response: whatever…I won’t hold my breath waiting…uhm...your canon theory doesn’t involve a Ouija board or using your Advanced Class nametag swinging-pendant style does it? You can answer yes...no...yes...no...ask the swinging Advanced Class nametag...yes...no...
~ ~ ~ ~
5. Mike said: .No! It was not that. exactly.
He taught us that the adversary had made difficult passaages that gave us sureness and power over him. It was subtle. He also taught us that we can get back to SOME of the originals by working the keys taught, and even including some academic research at times. But to get back to the FULLNESS of what the First Century believers had, it would require the assistance of God Almighty, which he had. God taught Dr and Dr taught us.
T-Bone’s response: there you go scurrying back to your security blanket – wierwille. Right there is your number one postulate – you assume “God taught Dr and Dr taught us”. That’s what a postulate is - in verb form it means to suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief; in noun form it means a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief. You’ve just revealed the basis for your beliefs! Don’t kid me with talk of how much you’ve figured stuff out on your own and verified wierwille’s PFAL stuff was accurate and practical. You just managed to shoot your credibility in your other foot – oh my gosh you’re de-feeted!
~ ~ ~ ~
6. Mike said: …I think VPW said something like 80% of what was reconstructed by the academics was available to us and accurate.
T-Bone’s response: who cares what wierwille said?!?! He also said he took everything he could take from Moody Bible Institute via correspondence courses – and we know that’s a bold-faced lie! I’ve got the letter from the registrar’s office to prove it and wave it high with investigative pride every chance I get…but I must be honest - I’m rushing through this reply to you so I can get back to watching another episode of The West Wing with my wife – so you can hunt for that doc on Grease Spot using its search feature or go to my profile under albums > blast from the past.
~ ~ ~ ~
7. Mike said: It's the fullness and power that God wanted us to have, minus the debilitating errors in tradition like JC=God, the dead are alive, new birth can be lost by sin, and a few other ringers.
T-Bone’s response: “minus the debilitating errors in tradition like JC=God” ?!?! what the hell does that mean?!?! Hey, if you’re going to throw in senseless and inflammatory remarks would you please post them in the appropriate thread. I’ve already challenged you to participate in the Trinity – asset or liability? thread started by johniam…the darndest thing – as of right now I’ve got 67 posts filled to overflowing with Biblical, theological, philosophical, linguistic arguments that address the profound doctrine of the Trinity…Even though it appears johniam started the thread to trash Trinitarians and promote his favorite con artist – he only posted a handful of replies and the “best” ammo he had for attack-mode was a post saying wierwille was 7th in line of whatever and the other silly post was referring to the Omen film series. You should come join that discussion – you and him have a lot in common…come on…it’ll be fun.
that's all for now...I'm off to watch more West Wing
Edited by T-Bonehe was very philosophical about hating the logic in math
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I only have time right now for one or two items. Maybe more later.
If you identify your favorite item, I'll try that next.
What Godel showed, much to the consternation of the math world was that there were mathematical statements that are TRUE, but that CANNOT be proved or derived. They can be found, and noticed to always seem true, but they can't IN PRINCIPLE be proved. If this is true for the clean world of math truths, it is even more true for the messy world's "life's truths." We can get told certain truths, as in revelation, but we can't prove them.
This means logic can only take you so far, and then your are stranded.
Accepting the possibility of true revelations from God is necessary to see the world of truths, most fully.
But I mentioned this Godel stuff is only ONE aspect of the pitfalls of logic. The other pitfall I mentioned are hidden Postulates. It is scary to tinker with one's Postulates. It's the unknown, and maybe even blasphemous. But a good searcher, researcher, seeker of truth will be brave and want to know what hidden assumptions (or Postulates) underlay their thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Nate asked if the original was written in Aramaic, you responded you didn't know. So you can see how my error was made. However, if you were attempting to be clear, you would have mentioned the Llamsa translation.
No, I'm thinking of the whole 2 Timothy discussion.
I have reservations about using a Aramaic word based on the fact you like it. Other than that...
All the more reason to question the validity of that word.
You were expecting me to swallow the whole thing without any critical thinking? Dream on. This isn't PLAF and you're not Saint Vic. Isn't that why the class was three or four hours long? To lull our critical thinking into a slumber.
And that's the crux of the problem: the difference between "sharing" and "teaching." Sharing you do with people on an equal level. Teaching means you want to be boss.
Ah, thee promises of a con man. Give it one more chance it'll be different.
The promises of an abusive spouse, give me another chance, I promise it'll be different.
Mike, from what people say here you haven't changed in 20 years. Now, if you haven't changed, why should I believe things will be different?
I know what'll happen: little Saint Vic's like you will try to lord over people. You'll promise wonders and we'll get blunders. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, I'm using as a dust mop.
No, I had unrealistic expectations of what the ministry promised what the class would do for me. Something like what you're trying to do now.
Because I believed what people like you told me about the class. If it doesn't work hang in there, they promised, it'll get better. Yha, sure. I got the number of the truck that hit me that time.
Sorry doesn't work that way for me. Out of the 40 years I think I was in the ministry attending fellowship maybe 6 years.
I figure you're trying to get your own splinter groupm started and this is where you come tom find holes in your reasoning you you can try to plug them
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike said: I only have time right now for one or two items. Maybe more later. If you identify your favorite item, I'll try that next.
T-Bone’s response: It really doesn’t matter to me, Mike – I’m not a big fan of you going all over the map about the value of nonsense. So – you can pick one thing that is appropriate to this discussion on the NT canon - and please, please, please don’t whip out one of your stream-of-consciousness-disorganized-and-confused-roadmaps to nowhere.
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike said: What Godel showed, much to the consternation of the math world was that there were mathematical statements that are TRUE, but that CANNOT be proved or derived. They can be found, and noticed to always seem true, but they can't IN PRINCIPLE be proved. If this is true for the clean world of math truths, it is even more true for the messy world's "life's truths."
T-Bone’s response: Yikes! You’re still going on about the price of Kool-Aid in China…well…this bears repeating: that really doesn’t matter to me, Mike – I’m not a big fan of you going all over the map about the value of nonsense. Please talk about something appropriate to this discussion on the NT canon - and please, please, please don’t whip out one of your stream-of-consciousness-disorganized-and-confused- roadmaps to nowhere.
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike said: We can get told certain truths, as in revelation, but we can't prove them. This means logic can only take you so far, and then your are stranded. Accepting the possibility of true revelations from God is necessary to see the world of truths, most fully.
T-Bone’s response: Here’s the thing, Mike. I have a hard time taking you seriously – because you come off like a child who finds big words on the internet – he doesn’t really understand what they mean but he tosses together a word salad and thinks he can carry on a meaningful conversation with adults.
I suggested you Google the difference between mathematical logic and philosophical logic. But did you do that? Noooooo! You reply back pretty quick using some big words again.
I don’t know why I’m even having this talking-passed-each-other-conversation with you right now…maybe part of the reason is I’m a softie and I tend to have compassion for someone who seems to be trapped in a particular mindset like I was…definitely part of why I engage in these discussions is the sheer pleasure of the Socratic method…I like to explore and learn…but I’m not stupid…actions speak louder than words…and often I can’t decide if you say stuff to just get a reaction from others…or run a reconfigured wierwille-idea up the flagpole and check out the response…or maybe there’s a slim chance you want out of a debilitating mindset – and so if it’s truly that - I’ll throw you a bone on the pursuit of truth.
Sorry folks - sort of off-topic - but in a sideways connection it’s relevant to the NT canon in that the truth or falsity of the ancient NT docs being reliable is determined only by how consistently good in quality it is to communicate the original message. That was the essence of Bruce’s book.
Scientific truth and mathematical truth give us no criteria for metaphysical truth. Therefore, what is needed is another definition of truth for the metaphysical realm. In reading up on philosophy, I lean toward one theory of what truth is – it’s called the correspondence theory of truth “In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.” From Wikipedia: correspondence theory of truth ....and remember it's just a THEORY !!!!
So basically, truth consists in some form of connection…correlation…resemblance…agreement between a belief and a fact. For me, this gets into how I look at the Bible – and there’s a lot of ways to look at the Bible – even as a Christian.
I believe the Bible is metaphysical truth (metaphysical = in a transcendent sense or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses) – that it is a revelation from God – written by people inspired of God. Considering that people are not perfect, have worldviews shaped by their times and culture, I think the Bible is best understood as metaphysical truth and not as scientific truth – it’s not written or laid out like a textbook. But consider the opening passage of the Bible - “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”…Now I can use the correspondence theory of truth, and reason that Genesis 1:1 might very well correlate with the big bang theory…but that’s just my opinion I could be wrong.
...it's my best guess...that's all I know
The big bang theory is one of scientists’ best guess on how the universe began – it is “the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution… the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning (typically named "the Big Bang singularity")” (from Wikipedia: Big Bang )
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike, at the end of your post you talked about some truths that cannot be proved. That’s right. God, Jesus Christ, heaven cannot be proved. Our logic can only take us so far. There is so much we don’t know. And like you said it is scary to tinker with one's Postulates. It's the unknown, and maybe even blasphemous. But a good searcher, researcher, seeker of truth will be brave and want to know what hidden assumptions (or Postulates) underlay their thinking. That’s what critical thinking is all about. And for a Christian there’s the twofold challenge: faith seeking understanding and understanding seeking faith.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I haven't changed my message.
Edited by MikeBut I have heeded my own message and have had a MUCH better time with just the reading materials, unsupervised. The over-supervision of the ministry started, to the best of my observation ability at the time, right after Craig started in 1982, and then went into overdrive as VPW was fading. What I saw was an enormous competition among volunteer Corps people for salaried positions. This led to more rules and supervision. This all melted down in 1986 with Geer, and within months the ministry divided into 3 main groups of Corps, still looking for that salary.
I was pulling back from all this, and felt free to experiment, which I did unsupervised for 10 years. That was 1998 and I returned to read the collaterals for 20 years. Now I am applying what I learned to Bible versions, and local fellowshipping with other casual proPFAL people. It is starting to resemble what I saw in the unsupervised fellowships of the Groovey Rye Christians, which I was a part of.
Now I see another wave of people coming back to PFAL to work with it without all the baggage of 37 years ago. It's a different world than the one you probably had a right to resent. A LOT of things went wrong. Some of us are devoted to fixing the problems, and not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
This is a little embarrassing. LoL
I just looked at Llamsa’s handling of 2 Timothy 4:13
Where the word “cloak” usually is,
Llamsa renders the word “book carrier.”
I had never looked there before. :)
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Not trying to straw man you here mike. It is worth considering who the people are/were who translated anything. Im not saying Llamsa is totally worthless as I think a lot can be gleaned from him culturally, etc. However, it's important to note what his beliefs were and if his beliefs affected his translation. Please read along:
https://www.equip.org/articles/george-m-lamsa/
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Tying this topic back to the way international, the foundational class used to place a divine emphasis on the order the Church epistles and also saying that the book count was off because the devil caused the book number to be 66....guess thats a bad combination of numbers? I mean , I get 666 cause we are told to reckon it...anywho....
I think it's fair to say that the order of the books of the Bible, including the Church epistles are not divinely inspired but are somewhat arbitrary, depending on the culture and time period in question with some standardization along the way. The arbitrary part is our current order of books that traces back to Jerome. Before Jerome the following seems to shed some light historically
https://www.cogwriter.com/original-bible-order.htm
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So what have you found went wrong and what are you personally devoted to fixing?
Doesn't that closed mind you praised a few pages back get in the way?
For the BOD the ministry was a money machine, all your pretty much telling me is that they're running out of cash and are scrambling to mind a way to keep the cash cow providing milk, hence the push, from even you, for nostalgia.
Unfortunately, you don't realize for many of us attending the class was an ordeal. Many of us got off work and had just enough time to eat before we were due at class. So the end of the class for many of us wasn't joy, it was relief that the ordeal was over.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
sorry, this was an error in my posting
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I would generally agree with that.
But I never heard of TWI concerns about the number of OT books.
Because of (1) the invariant order of the Church Epistles, and (2) Peter referring to ALL of Paul's Epistles, and (3) from the scripture party that Paul set up at the end of 2 Timothy, it is obvious that those Epistles were gathered together under Paul's supervision at a very early date.... like AD 67 ?
I am confident that the general pattern for the Biblical writers was each writer who received revelation to write for God, also had the revelation as to whom the writing should be delivered. Decent and in order, in other words. This is the main part of my canon theory.
I saw this pattern elsewhere in my KJV search long ago.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
So what have you found went wrong and what are you personally devoted to fixing?
Lots is documented here at GSC as to what went wrong.
I have a folder and am collecting items to bring to TWI leaders’ attention. They already know about most of them. Some things they seem to not be aware of, and I am slowly bringing them up. The survivors of Craig and Rosalee have learned a lot of things in the past 37 years, and I can learn from them also.
I am slowly pressing for written notices or memos as to what old policies are out and what new policies are in. In tech industry these are called ECNs for Engineering Change Notices.
One important ECN that I am looking into writing myself regards that “old wineskins” stuff from Craig in the 1990s. I hear that some nooks and crannies in TWI have not gotten the memo to dump that policy, so it needs to be put in writing and sent to all leaders, like they do in industry.
I’d also like to see an ECN that endorses the John Scheonheit paper on adultery, or at least a full working of that paper’s contents, and a few appropriate ECNs could be issued.
Things like these ECNs have to respect the new people who are just starting out in the Word. How they are distributed needs to be decent and in order.
It may be also necessary that these ECNs will have to be written and distributed into the ministry from private sources and not from the official ministry leaders to avoid lawsuits. The leaders would have to cooperate, but remain officially disconnected from them.
Maybe we can start a thread for suggestions on ECNs.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Doesn't that closed mind you praised a few pages back get in the way?
LoL
Did you get the impression that I think a closed mind is good at all times and with all topics? I don’t. It is good for some things, some of the time. I can turn it on and off like a switch.
We all do this when we watch a fiction movie, especially with comedy and science fiction. When we switch on the movie, we switch off our critical thinking skills and enjoy the film. We open our mind to it. Then, when it is over we switch that open mind off.
*/*/*/*/*
For the BOD the ministry was a money machine, all your pretty much telling me is that they're running out of cash and are scrambling to mind a way to keep the cash cow providing milk, hence the push, from even you, for nostalgia.
I’m not pushing any nostalgia. I want to see them move closer to the collaterals and mastering them. The longtime leaders have a good working knowledge of them now.
I somewhat get that impression, that they are short of cash, but I can plainly see more that they are a little overwhelmed with work in other countries, especially Africa.
One of my suggestions, if cash really is a problem, is to sell the campus properties they don’t need. Selling all of them should even be considered. I am not nostalgic for the properties. It is the teaching that God did that is most valuable.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Unfortunately, you don't realize for many of us attending the class was an ordeal. Many of us got off work and had just enough time to eat before we were due at class. So the end of the class for many of us wasn't joy, it was relief that the ordeal was over.
.Yes, I went thru that in the 1970s, and it could be arduous at times. The infliction of lots of rules from HQ was not good. Some of them were good for new people, but the Corps way of doing things got way out of hand, and mass production overtook quality by the mid 1980s.
The local leaders I get to hang lately with are very casual, reasonable, and not at all in the Corps Nazi mold that ruined things.
*/*/*
I’m wondering how you did with SIT. Was it fun? Do you still do it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
In other words, nothing has really changed they're still discussing it.
I didn't mean what you'd like to see or what could change, I meant what changes have you specifically worked on. So far your telling me there are no real changes, just a lot of future faking, i.e, maybe perhaps we'll change at some future date, if we feel like it.
That's not closing your mind, that's suspension of disbelief. And even that's a very gossamer quality, very easy to break. All it takes is little things like too many shots fired out of a revolver or a continually error. A closed mind however is very hard to open. Even when confronted with reason it will insist on staying closed.
Really, you're not pushing nostalgia. Then what's all this remember the joy you felt when you first took the class business?
Yah, Saint Vic really followed that didn't he? That's why he had all those secular toys: a motorcycle collection, a classic car. All teaching that God is most valuable.
Well, as I told you many times in the past, your not the standard. I'm sure it's the same old same old elsewhere.
Fun? That's an odd word for praying. I first stated SITting at a Rock, I was up all night SITting.
Occasionally, although I don't know if it does any good.
Edited by So_cratesLink 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.