Something else struck me also...if a person who is not born again can't have faith which is suppose to be believing according to vpw then what about the concept of believing equals receiving? He stated that it works for saint and sinner alike.
quote:a person who is not born again can't have faith which is suppose to be believing according to vpw then what about the concept of believing equals receiving?
Vickles. My take on that is that "Believing" is open to anything with Body and Soul.
After all, there are three divisions. Body. Soul. Spirit.
The ability to "believe" is open to those with "body" and "soul" yes?
But if that is the case, then a cow could manifest the Abundance into its life couldnt it?
At the very least a cow should be able to "believe"
Yes Vickles. Perhaps, "natural man" always having had capacity for "spirit", something animals never had, well, perhaps that is the difference between man and cow.
Mayhap there sould be a tentative 4th dividing- Body, soul, man soul, and spirit.
In the OT men and women-O-God would have spirit upon them as opposed to in them. The difference between the prePente believers and the postPente belivers was that the post had spirit or "seed" in them that they could not lose. You were a child of God and "all hell couln't stop you" from going to heaven. On the other hand the prePente people could loose it if they screwed up or got "out of fellowship".
Also, spirit had many meanings to VP, just as faith did. But to answer your question....among other things, all life was spirit, just not holy spirit. Later in the Advanced class you would learn that not only is there Holy Spirit and holy spirit but angels are spirit and there are devil spirits or fallen angels and there is the spirit of man which is just body and soul man. Funny that body and soul people had spirit but they didn't have spirit. I guess you could call it man soul. or something
Here is another one of those great obtuse VP quotes for you.
(I think this is right)
"The spirit of God is the light of God in concretion"
of course spirit had no shape, form, taste, smell or anything.....but it was the light of God in concretion.
that was one of those things that I just assumed I was not spiritual enough to get it. clearly he got revelation on that one.
Of course I was fed this crap from the age of five so I had no other viable references to consider.
Wierwille based his differentiation between faith and believing on a verse that says in part "before faith came"; (I have neither the time nor the inclination to look it up) even though both "faith" and "believing" are translated from the same Greek word: pistis.
I can kind of see where a neophyte might be tempted to separate the two based on the "before faith came" statement, but it doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. Wierwille, although he defines his take on "believing" pretty thoroughly, never really tells us what "faith" is.
Wierwille did not teach that all men before Pentecost were natural men. He taught that a "conditional", not-necessarily-permanet spirit was "upon" certian believers in the OT, as opposed to the unconditional, couldn't-lose-it spirit within of the NT
Oh also the folks in Hebrews all died in faith or "believing". We were told that meant they died in fellowship. In otherwords the spirit of God was on them until their last breath.
That was why they could die in faith or believing. Also, in the Adv. Class that the faith used in Heb. was the manifestation of faith/believing. OF course that is whole other teaching.
Yes that's right...I still have all the answers to life's questions locked up in my head.
Well having reached the ¾ way mark in the PFAL Orange book I am caused to wonder about a couple things that revolve around the Pentecost experience.
Doctor Wierwille writes that there was no “Spirit” in man after the fall until the possibility of it was restored at PENTECOST.
So ..(correct me if Im wrong).. From the “Fall” until “Pentecost” man comprised only “Body” and “Soul”.
[Correct. ]
Now in the latter sections of the Orange book He claims that “Faith” is of the “Spirit” and is not available to the “Natural Man”.Faith wasn’t AVAILABLE in the time the Gospels are pertinent to.
Dr Wierwille claims that Gospel references to "Faith" apply to something different than Post Pentecost "faith"
As Well what about Hebrews 11? Which says Abel had “faith”, Noah had “faith”etc.
Now of course I know that Doctor Wierwille explains this away by saying that The original _meanings_ of the Greek and Hebrew words are different from the meanings impuned to them by misled Scholars and that “faith” when used in regard to the OT/ Jesus periods doesn’t mean the same thing as “faith” when used post Pentecost.
But did anyone here CHECK to see whether Wierwilles claimed interpretations of these Greek/Hebrew words were _correct_?
Im curious.
IS he correct?
[There's been several threads on this subject, and much discussion. The short answer might go like this: vpw said that the Greek word "pistis" should be translated "believing" in some places, and "pistis" in some other places. Before Pentecost, it should always be translated "believing", because, before the "faith of Jesus Christ", there was no "faith". Even c.g., with his "Bible Kinds of Faith" series, had a MUCH better answer than that. There's NOTHING in the Greek to distinguish between the two words-the only distinction was in vpw's mind and doctrine.]
Now my second concern pertains to the same thing, the fact that ALL MEN between The Fall and Pentecost were “Natural Men”, They having no access to “Spirit”.
Now if this is so, how did the OT Writers receive their message from God so as to write the OT?
1 Corinthians 2 v 14 says….Well, you know what it says. The Natural man cannot receive the things of the spirit.
Did the OT Writers use their power to BELIEVE to write the OT? I only see him offer two options : POWER TO BELIEVE and FAITH
How did the OT Writers RECIEVE the "Word" then?
[ You went too fast, and mixed two different concepts. According to vpw, Man's original design was body, soul and spirit, correct. Man lost spirit-and his direct connection to God-in the Garden, correct. Now we get to the part you got lost at. Man's permanent connection to spirit "became available" starting the day of Pentecost. Now, between the fall in the Garden, and the Day of Pentecost, there were prophets. For these men to receive revelation from God, they would most likely have spirit. (Either that, or God would have to act in the 5 senses category each and every time.) In each case, the prophet was loaned a certain amount of spirit, which was placed "upon", not "in", him. (Let me know if you need examples.) This was a temporary arrangement, and a prophet could lose it-and some of them did-like King Saul. ]
Again, it comes down to Doctor Wierwilles explanations as to the meanings of original words in original texts. Is anybody able to offer an opinion on whether they think Wierwilles interpretations on these 2 points are CORRECT?
How CLOSE to the TRUTH do you guys think he was?
[On the first, not even close. On the second, pretty close, in my opinion. Then again, I haven't seen a source for the first, whereas he plagiarized the material for the second. As some have pointed out, those few things vpw originated were generally the sloppiest errors in his theology.]
;)-->
Mike???
[Mike would say the Orange Book is 100% correct, and it's the Bible that's wrong. He justifies that by claiming the Bible was virtually rewritten over the centuries so as to lose all accuracy. ]
Something else struck me also...if a person who is not born again can't have faith which is suppose to be believing according to vpw then what about the concept of believing equals receiving? He stated that it works for saint and sinner alike.
I'm confused... -->
Got it backwards. vpw said the one Greek word should be 2 words in English,
representing 2 different things-"faith" (a noun), and "believing" (a verb).
Yes Vickles. Perhaps, "natural man" always having had capacity for "spirit", something animals never had, well, perhaps that is the difference between man and cow.
Mayhap there sould be a tentative 4th dividing- Body, soul, man soul, and spirit.
Yes, that would work I think.
Actually, just as there's differences in spirit between God Himself, angels, and
the spirit for Born Again Ones, there would be differences in soul between
man and animal (possibly between types of animal, even.) Since there's differences
in Body, but animals all have a body, this isn't so far-fetched.
quote: “The short answer might go like this: vpw said that the Greek word "pistis" should be translated "believing" in some places, and "pistis" in some other places. Before Pentecost, it should always be translated "believing", because, before the "faith of Jesus Christ", there was no "faith"…..…There's NOTHING in the Greek to distinguish between the two words-the only distinction was in vpw's mind and doctrine…”
Well okay then I begin to see the need for the doctrine of “The power of Believing” to be developed, because there was no “Spirit” back in 1500BC for Moses to be illuminated by, until the notion of “Spirit” being “loaned” to him is developed.
quote: “Man's permanent connection to spirit "became available" starting the day of Pentecost. Now, between the fall in the Garden, and the Day of Pentecost, there were prophets. For these men to receive revelation from God, they would most likely have spirit. (Either that, or God would have to act in the 5 senses category each and every time.) In each case, the prophet was loaned a certain amount of spirit, which was placed "upon", not "in", him...”
I must have missed the “Placed Upon” explanation as laid out in PFAL.
Such an explanation is indeed required if there are only the types “5 senses” man and “Spiritual” man identified. The only immediate way I could envisage “natural” man receiving any “Word” from God would be direct verbal communication or stone tablets that he could lay his eyeballs on.
After all, ideas developed through thought upon a subject, and dreams or visions, are not of the 5 senses now are they?
Are they??
Perhaps Im being disputatious , deliberately obstructionist, and need to be publicly screeched at.
quote:(Let me know if you need examples.)
Examples yes, By all means. Instruct me as you will.
Dreams and visions appeared to have been few in number as a form of communication from God. The stars and planets were a critical means of things past, present and future. With people skilled in the reading of them (not astrology but astronomy). Spirit upon was very similar to spirit within (after the new birth) and was God's prerogative as to whether you had it or not. As well, it was limited in scope of what Jesus Christ accomplished works provided. Enabling the maximum effectiveness between God and His children. I am not as scholarly as many here so shall refrain from giving an answer beyond that.
I would like to add I do not dispute all of PFAL, as some is founded on the truth of the Word. Source of validation my own personal relationship with God and research of things. As well, I know it possible to still have my skin crawl regarding the MOG yet still have learned things of eternal benefit for my life from both of them. We can learn something anywhere eh! ;)-->
Wierwille attempts to explains "spirit upon" on page 78 & 79 of PFAL.
Wierwille's "spirit upon" theory fails his own definition, because Wierwille states that God cannot speak to the human mind becase He is spirit and spirit cannot communicate with flesh. Well, the spirit upon is also "spirit".
Why can't God who is spirit speak to the human mind when the spirit that he gives can?
His "Law" is contradictory. Makes no sense at all.
Wierwille makes his case for man having no spirit after the original sin through a process of inductive logic.
First he take verses in Genesis 1 & 2 and Isaiah 43:7 and make large distinctions between made, formed, and created, which he then corleates with body, soul, and spirit in 1 Thessalonians 5:23.
Then from Genesis 2:17 he builds further, "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"
Wierwille notes that Adam and Eve continued to live and breathe after they ate from the tree, but that Genesis 2:17 clearly states that in the day - that very same day that Adam and Eve would die. So the only possible conclusion is that the body and soul remained alive but the spirit the he created within them "died" on the very same day that they ate.
The truth of the conclusion is dependant upon the premises being correct. So I would first question the distinctions Wierwille makes between made, formed, and created.
Create = bara
made = asah
Formed = yatsar
A look at "bara" will show a fallacy in Wierwille's logic.
Take Isaiah 43:7 for example. It reads:
"[Even] every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory , I have formed him; yea, I have made him.
This was written after the fall of man - yet God says that every one call by his name is "created" - which according to Wierwille's definitions would mean that they had spirit - which he claims they do not have.
In Psalm 51:10 David writes: "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me."
Why would David ask God to "create" in regards to the heart which VPW correlates to the soul. He also says "within" in regards to to a right spirit instead of "upon". It seems the "spirit" David is refering to is his heart(soul). David does not seem to make the same distinction between soul and spirit as Wierwille.
Psalm 89:47 reads: "Remember how short my time is: wherefore hast thou made all men in vain?"
In this verse, "made" is translated from "bara"(create) which could be translated created all men in vain. This according to Wierwille would imply that all men had "spirit" ... Made and Create ie bara and asha are used synonomously in many places throughout the scriptures.
IMO, Wierwille's distinction between made and create is eroneous as is evident from looking at the many other usages of "bara" and "asah" in scripture.
This should be reason enough to seriuosly question the validity of Wierwilles conclusion that man had no spirit from Genesis to Pentecost.
I knew I had read the passage about how the Ancient prophets recieved the Word, but lost the reference in the wash . It is on page 78, as you say.
Of course, the Doctor there presents a number of scriptures to support the notion of "spirit upon" as opposed to "spirit within", But i notice that the Deutronomy 34 v 9 quote implies being filled rather than blanketed.
JWitness meetings were very tightly regulated with everyuthing being said very directed by protocol.
I definitely get the feeling that there must have been active discussion classes in PFAL with open discussion, in other words everyone commenting and even debating.
New students were encouraged to write down their questions and hold them until the end of the entire class, with the suggestion that their questions would more than likely be answered in a later session.
And if they still had questions after the class was over, they were invited to give them to the class co-ordinater, who would either answer them or get them answered from higher up.
quote: Wierwille notes that Adam and Eve continued to live and breathe after they ate from the tree, but that Genesis 2:17 clearly states that in the day - that very same day that Adam and Eve would die. So the only possible conclusion is that the body and soul remained alive but the spirit the he created within them "died" on the very same day that they ate.
The JayDubs have their take on this "day" period too, claiming that a "day" equals 1000 years. Adam living until 930 years of age, he died within the "day". --> As well, it can be said that he "commenced to die" on that day.
Of course, a Dub "day" equals many things, including a "creative day" of 7000 years duration.
Where they got the 7000 years notion from I cant say.
Many people on this site have indicated that they have their own lexicons and used them regularly.
Being as they spent time researching the greek, and being as there are so many blindingly apparent contradictions in Wierwilles interpretation of the greek, then I figured there must have been a mechanism for dealing with the confusion that must inevitably result from each person doing his own private searching.
In other words some kind of group debating session.
OK... I forget sometimes how "we" must look to an "outsider" (although you are a fellow ex-cultie!)... many of us had those resources, and more... but, in my case anyway, if I found something contradictory I'd ask about it one on one with someone "more knowledgable" than I... and I wasn't any kind of an expert in the greek or hebrew field... so whatever answer they gave me I bought... (my bad!) ...but I don't ever recall any discussion groups "debating" anything related to PFAL or TWI unless it was positive debate... (my time period is mid to late 70's)
This was while "in"... now after we got out... there were many debates!
Many people on this site have indicated that they have their own lexicons and used them regularly.
Being as they spent time researching the greek, and being as there are so many blindingly apparent contradictions in Wierwilles interpretation of the greek, then I figured there must have been a mechanism for dealing with the confusion that must inevitably result from each person doing his own private searching.
In other words some kind of group debating session.
Here's how that worked, Refiner....
You took pfal EARLY in your twi "career".
You learned Bible study and research tools after that.
By that time, you already sat thru it 2-5 times, and are used to just memorizing
and spitting back its contents without critical analysis. Besides, vpw
supposedly knew better than you, so any questioning of him usually was suppressed
by yourself before you took it any further.
As you've seen, there WERE some exceptions here and there.....
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
5
5
17
5
Popular Days
Jun 26
18
Jun 27
13
Jun 28
8
Jun 29
7
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 5 posts
WordWolf 5 posts
Refiner 17 posts
Tom Strange 5 posts
Popular Days
Jun 26 2004
18 posts
Jun 27 2004
13 posts
Jun 28 2004
8 posts
Jun 29 2004
7 posts
vickles
Something else struck me also...if a person who is not born again can't have faith which is suppose to be believing according to vpw then what about the concept of believing equals receiving? He stated that it works for saint and sinner alike.
I'm confused...
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I don't know Refiner... but Mike says it's because veepee got the revelation directly from God so it must be right...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
Vickles. My take on that is that "Believing" is open to anything with Body and Soul.
After all, there are three divisions. Body. Soul. Spirit.
The ability to "believe" is open to those with "body" and "soul" yes?
But if that is the case, then a cow could manifest the Abundance into its life couldnt it?
At the very least a cow should be able to "believe"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
A plant couldnt manifest abundance though.
It has no "soul"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
LOL, Refiner, I love the way you think!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
Yes Vickles. Perhaps, "natural man" always having had capacity for "spirit", something animals never had, well, perhaps that is the difference between man and cow.
Mayhap there sould be a tentative 4th dividing- Body, soul, man soul, and spirit.
Yes, that would work I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Actually
In the OT men and women-O-God would have spirit upon them as opposed to in them. The difference between the prePente believers and the postPente belivers was that the post had spirit or "seed" in them that they could not lose. You were a child of God and "all hell couln't stop you" from going to heaven. On the other hand the prePente people could loose it if they screwed up or got "out of fellowship".
Also, spirit had many meanings to VP, just as faith did. But to answer your question....among other things, all life was spirit, just not holy spirit. Later in the Advanced class you would learn that not only is there Holy Spirit and holy spirit but angels are spirit and there are devil spirits or fallen angels and there is the spirit of man which is just body and soul man. Funny that body and soul people had spirit but they didn't have spirit. I guess you could call it man soul. or something
Here is another one of those great obtuse VP quotes for you.
(I think this is right)
"The spirit of God is the light of God in concretion"
of course spirit had no shape, form, taste, smell or anything.....but it was the light of God in concretion.
that was one of those things that I just assumed I was not spiritual enough to get it. clearly he got revelation on that one.
Of course I was fed this crap from the age of five so I had no other viable references to consider.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Wierwille based his differentiation between faith and believing on a verse that says in part "before faith came"; (I have neither the time nor the inclination to look it up) even though both "faith" and "believing" are translated from the same Greek word: pistis.
I can kind of see where a neophyte might be tempted to separate the two based on the "before faith came" statement, but it doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. Wierwille, although he defines his take on "believing" pretty thoroughly, never really tells us what "faith" is.
Wierwille did not teach that all men before Pentecost were natural men. He taught that a "conditional", not-necessarily-permanet spirit was "upon" certian believers in the OT, as opposed to the unconditional, couldn't-lose-it spirit within of the NT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Oh also the folks in Hebrews all died in faith or "believing". We were told that meant they died in fellowship. In otherwords the spirit of God was on them until their last breath.
That was why they could die in faith or believing. Also, in the Adv. Class that the faith used in Heb. was the manifestation of faith/believing. OF course that is whole other teaching.
Yes that's right...I still have all the answers to life's questions locked up in my head.
too bad they are all lies. lol
I guess you could say I am full of $h!t.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
hey Oak I guess we posted at the same time.
yeah what he said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Posted by Refiner.
[WordWolf replies in boldface. ]
[Mike would say the Orange Book is 100% correct, and it's the Bible that's wrong. He justifies that by claiming the Bible was virtually rewritten over the centuries so as to lose all accuracy. ]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Got it backwards. vpw said the one Greek word should be 2 words in English,
representing 2 different things-"faith" (a noun), and "believing" (a verb).
According to vpw,
a natural man, thru believing God,
gets born again and receives faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually, just as there's differences in spirit between God Himself, angels, and
the spirit for Born Again Ones, there would be differences in soul between
man and animal (possibly between types of animal, even.) Since there's differences
in Body, but animals all have a body, this isn't so far-fetched.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
Selectively quoting WW:
Well okay then I begin to see the need for the doctrine of “The power of Believing” to be developed, because there was no “Spirit” back in 1500BC for Moses to be illuminated by, until the notion of “Spirit” being “loaned” to him is developed.
I must have missed the “Placed Upon” explanation as laid out in PFAL.
Such an explanation is indeed required if there are only the types “5 senses” man and “Spiritual” man identified. The only immediate way I could envisage “natural” man receiving any “Word” from God would be direct verbal communication or stone tablets that he could lay his eyeballs on.
After all, ideas developed through thought upon a subject, and dreams or visions, are not of the 5 senses now are they?
Are they??
Perhaps Im being disputatious , deliberately obstructionist, and need to be publicly screeched at.
Examples yes, By all means. Instruct me as you will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
houseisarockin
Dreams and visions appeared to have been few in number as a form of communication from God. The stars and planets were a critical means of things past, present and future. With people skilled in the reading of them (not astrology but astronomy). Spirit upon was very similar to spirit within (after the new birth) and was God's prerogative as to whether you had it or not. As well, it was limited in scope of what Jesus Christ accomplished works provided. Enabling the maximum effectiveness between God and His children. I am not as scholarly as many here so shall refrain from giving an answer beyond that.
I would like to add I do not dispute all of PFAL, as some is founded on the truth of the Word. Source of validation my own personal relationship with God and research of things. As well, I know it possible to still have my skin crawl regarding the MOG yet still have learned things of eternal benefit for my life from both of them. We can learn something anywhere eh!
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Refiner,
Wierwille attempts to explains "spirit upon" on page 78 & 79 of PFAL.
Wierwille's "spirit upon" theory fails his own definition, because Wierwille states that God cannot speak to the human mind becase He is spirit and spirit cannot communicate with flesh. Well, the spirit upon is also "spirit".
Why can't God who is spirit speak to the human mind when the spirit that he gives can?
His "Law" is contradictory. Makes no sense at all.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Wierwille makes his case for man having no spirit after the original sin through a process of inductive logic.
First he take verses in Genesis 1 & 2 and Isaiah 43:7 and make large distinctions between made, formed, and created, which he then corleates with body, soul, and spirit in 1 Thessalonians 5:23.
Then from Genesis 2:17 he builds further, "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"
Wierwille notes that Adam and Eve continued to live and breathe after they ate from the tree, but that Genesis 2:17 clearly states that in the day - that very same day that Adam and Eve would die. So the only possible conclusion is that the body and soul remained alive but the spirit the he created within them "died" on the very same day that they ate.
The truth of the conclusion is dependant upon the premises being correct. So I would first question the distinctions Wierwille makes between made, formed, and created.
Create = bara
made = asah
Formed = yatsar
A look at "bara" will show a fallacy in Wierwille's logic.
Take Isaiah 43:7 for example. It reads:
"[Even] every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory , I have formed him; yea, I have made him.
This was written after the fall of man - yet God says that every one call by his name is "created" - which according to Wierwille's definitions would mean that they had spirit - which he claims they do not have.
In Psalm 51:10 David writes: "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me."
Why would David ask God to "create" in regards to the heart which VPW correlates to the soul. He also says "within" in regards to to a right spirit instead of "upon". It seems the "spirit" David is refering to is his heart(soul). David does not seem to make the same distinction between soul and spirit as Wierwille.
Psalm 89:47 reads: "Remember how short my time is: wherefore hast thou made all men in vain?"
In this verse, "made" is translated from "bara"(create) which could be translated created all men in vain. This according to Wierwille would imply that all men had "spirit" ... Made and Create ie bara and asha are used synonomously in many places throughout the scriptures.
IMO, Wierwille's distinction between made and create is eroneous as is evident from looking at the many other usages of "bara" and "asah" in scripture.
This should be reason enough to seriuosly question the validity of Wierwilles conclusion that man had no spirit from Genesis to Pentecost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
Ah Goey, many thanks.
I knew I had read the passage about how the Ancient prophets recieved the Word, but lost the reference in the wash . It is on page 78, as you say.
Of course, the Doctor there presents a number of scriptures to support the notion of "spirit upon" as opposed to "spirit within", But i notice that the Deutronomy 34 v 9 quote implies being filled rather than blanketed.
JWitness meetings were very tightly regulated with everyuthing being said very directed by protocol.
I definitely get the feeling that there must have been active discussion classes in PFAL with open discussion, in other words everyone commenting and even debating.
Would that be correct?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Umm, actually, NO.
New students were encouraged to write down their questions and hold them until the end of the entire class, with the suggestion that their questions would more than likely be answered in a later session.
And if they still had questions after the class was over, they were invited to give them to the class co-ordinater, who would either answer them or get them answered from higher up.
So no active discussion whatsoever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
You were being facetious weren't you Refiner?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
Thanks steve.
Now Goey said:
The JayDubs have their take on this "day" period too, claiming that a "day" equals 1000 years. Adam living until 930 years of age, he died within the "day".
--> As well, it can be said that he "commenced to die" on that day.
Of course, a Dub "day" equals many things, including a "creative day" of 7000 years duration.
Where they got the 7000 years notion from I cant say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
TS.
I certainly was not being facetious.
Many people on this site have indicated that they have their own lexicons and used them regularly.
Being as they spent time researching the greek, and being as there are so many blindingly apparent contradictions in Wierwilles interpretation of the greek, then I figured there must have been a mechanism for dealing with the confusion that must inevitably result from each person doing his own private searching.
In other words some kind of group debating session.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
OK... I forget sometimes how "we" must look to an "outsider" (although you are a fellow ex-cultie!)... many of us had those resources, and more... but, in my case anyway, if I found something contradictory I'd ask about it one on one with someone "more knowledgable" than I... and I wasn't any kind of an expert in the greek or hebrew field... so whatever answer they gave me I bought... (my bad!) ...but I don't ever recall any discussion groups "debating" anything related to PFAL or TWI unless it was positive debate... (my time period is mid to late 70's)
This was while "in"... now after we got out... there were many debates!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Here's how that worked, Refiner....
You took pfal EARLY in your twi "career".
You learned Bible study and research tools after that.
By that time, you already sat thru it 2-5 times, and are used to just memorizing
and spitting back its contents without critical analysis. Besides, vpw
supposedly knew better than you, so any questioning of him usually was suppressed
by yourself before you took it any further.
As you've seen, there WERE some exceptions here and there.....
Most of us figured it out after we left, tho.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.