I don't know the answer to your question. But I began studying the O.T. from a jewish perspective a year or so ago and it really put the N.T. in an entirely different light in terms of understanding it.
What an interesting question you ask. I've thought the same thing about the Gospels. In reevaluating the "biblical teaching" that I received in TWI, I have to admit that most of what I learned was more "way doctrine" backed up by New Testament verses than anything else.
As far as "biblical scholarship" goes, TWI wasn't even on the map. Sure there was lotza talk and hype about being a "biblical research minstry," but when it gets right down to it, it was alot of fluff and hype.
I've learned far more about Old Testament History in particular, and the Bible in general, by going to church and women's bible studies over the past 18 years or so. It's sad, really. Yeah I was a way corps member, and to some extent we were given the proper tools for "working the word," but when it got right down to it, our "working" had to line up with way doctrine. And when it didn't, there was always some "spiritual" explanation. Yet, I don't feel like I wasted my time or anything. I'm just really glad that there are resources "out there" for studying and learning if that happens to be one's inclination.
Funny what can happen when the scales fall off our eyes. :)
The greatest thing I've learned about the OT since escaping from the dungeon is who Jesus Christ was, is, and will be. I think it's totally impossible to really understand the NT without the foundation laid in the OT and Gospels.
I always thought that it was curious that Mr Wierwille taught his administrational doctrine...placing a HUGE emphasis on the church epistles...but yet...saw himself as a "Moses" for God's people. He patterned his "ministry" after the old testament model, declaring Christ as absent. That's why LCM saw himself as Josuha.
I thought John S did a good job teaching the old testatment, but I ain't no biblical scholar.
I think vic didn't teach it.. along with the book of revelation.. because.. he wasn't that smart. Too big of a book.. too much context to consider. Too many "anomalies" to deal with.. too much of a chance of being technically wrong.
Or maybe he just couldn't find anything around worth plagiarizing, besides Bullinger..
I think vic didn't teach it.. along with the book of revelation.. because.. he wasn't that smart. Too big of a book.. too much context to consider. Too many "anomalies" to deal with.. too much of a chance of being technically wrong.
That's close to what I was going to say.
Remember the steps vpw took to being in charge of twi.
His area of study was NOT Bible languages, Koine Greek, Hebrew.
His area of study was NOT Bible History-archeology, and so on.
Those require a lot of study and significant amounts of memorization.
He wasn't "hot" in those areas, either-as real students of them can easily point out.
Even the passing mention of "earliest texts" in the Orange Book fail to mention
documents found in the early 1950s-and the copyright is early 1970s.
I know they didn't have the internet, but he kept getting all those magazines
that kept going in the trash-and THEY would have mentioned that was NEWS.
His area of study was "Homiletics", which, IMHO, is the EASIEST/ "softest" option
to take in a Bible college.
vpw then is unimpressive until he gets ahold of Leonard's class, and a few months
later suddenly begins making a name for himself with Leonard's class, and,
later, additions from Stiles, Bullinger and Kenyon.
The "depth of research" there was just cutting-and-pasting.
Without a convenient "cut-and-paste" source, he would have had to
study history, archeology, customs and so on.
Too much work for vp.
Better to stick with what he can glean from Bullinger and Leonard
...and if it doesn't fit with your current belief system you can add, change or delete a word. It worked for Eve. Oh now it fits like a hand in a glove, with a scientific precision and a mathematical accuracy.
Just omit the whole verse, chapter, or book by claiming that it's a direct forgery. Matthew is so full of forgeries we can just chuck the whole book. Oh now it fits like a hand in a glove, with a scientific precision and a mathematical accuracy.
No the comma belongs here. Oh now it fits like a hand in a glove, with a scientific precision and a mathematical accuracy.
Its throughly not thoroughly. Oh now it fits like a hand in a glove, with a scientific precision and a mathematical accuracy.
Its manifestations not gifts. Oh now it fits like a hand in a glove, with a scientific precision and a mathematical accuracy.
If you disagree, just renew your mind. Oh now it fits like a hand in a glove, with a scientific precision and a mathematical accuracy.
That is TWI doctrine of biblical accuracy in a nutshell.
I could go on an on with more examples, but the end result would still be [Oh now it fits like a hand in a glove, with a scientific precision and a mathematical accuracy.]
Recommended Posts
Abigail
I don't know the answer to your question. But I began studying the O.T. from a jewish perspective a year or so ago and it really put the N.T. in an entirely different light in terms of understanding it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Rejoice
What an interesting question you ask. I've thought the same thing about the Gospels. In reevaluating the "biblical teaching" that I received in TWI, I have to admit that most of what I learned was more "way doctrine" backed up by New Testament verses than anything else.
As far as "biblical scholarship" goes, TWI wasn't even on the map. Sure there was lotza talk and hype about being a "biblical research minstry," but when it gets right down to it, it was alot of fluff and hype.
I've learned far more about Old Testament History in particular, and the Bible in general, by going to church and women's bible studies over the past 18 years or so. It's sad, really. Yeah I was a way corps member, and to some extent we were given the proper tools for "working the word," but when it got right down to it, our "working" had to line up with way doctrine. And when it didn't, there was always some "spiritual" explanation. Yet, I don't feel like I wasted my time or anything. I'm just really glad that there are resources "out there" for studying and learning if that happens to be one's inclination.
Funny what can happen when the scales fall off our eyes. :)
The greatest thing I've learned about the OT since escaping from the dungeon is who Jesus Christ was, is, and will be. I think it's totally impossible to really understand the NT without the foundation laid in the OT and Gospels.
Thanks for making me think. I think. B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I always thought that it was curious that Mr Wierwille taught his administrational doctrine...placing a HUGE emphasis on the church epistles...but yet...saw himself as a "Moses" for God's people. He patterned his "ministry" after the old testament model, declaring Christ as absent. That's why LCM saw himself as Josuha.
I thought John S did a good job teaching the old testatment, but I ain't no biblical scholar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think vic didn't teach it.. along with the book of revelation.. because.. he wasn't that smart. Too big of a book.. too much context to consider. Too many "anomalies" to deal with.. too much of a chance of being technically wrong.
Or maybe he just couldn't find anything around worth plagiarizing, besides Bullinger..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That's close to what I was going to say.
Remember the steps vpw took to being in charge of twi.
His area of study was NOT Bible languages, Koine Greek, Hebrew.
His area of study was NOT Bible History-archeology, and so on.
Those require a lot of study and significant amounts of memorization.
He wasn't "hot" in those areas, either-as real students of them can easily point out.
Even the passing mention of "earliest texts" in the Orange Book fail to mention
documents found in the early 1950s-and the copyright is early 1970s.
I know they didn't have the internet, but he kept getting all those magazines
that kept going in the trash-and THEY would have mentioned that was NEWS.
His area of study was "Homiletics", which, IMHO, is the EASIEST/ "softest" option
to take in a Bible college.
vpw then is unimpressive until he gets ahold of Leonard's class, and a few months
later suddenly begins making a name for himself with Leonard's class, and,
later, additions from Stiles, Bullinger and Kenyon.
The "depth of research" there was just cutting-and-pasting.
Without a convenient "cut-and-paste" source, he would have had to
study history, archeology, customs and so on.
Too much work for vp.
Better to stick with what he can glean from Bullinger and Leonard
on the OT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brother Speed
...and if it doesn't fit with your current belief system you can add, change or delete a word. It worked for Eve. Oh now it fits like a hand in a glove, with a scientific precision and a mathematical accuracy.
Just omit the whole verse, chapter, or book by claiming that it's a direct forgery. Matthew is so full of forgeries we can just chuck the whole book. Oh now it fits like a hand in a glove, with a scientific precision and a mathematical accuracy.
No the comma belongs here. Oh now it fits like a hand in a glove, with a scientific precision and a mathematical accuracy.
Its throughly not thoroughly. Oh now it fits like a hand in a glove, with a scientific precision and a mathematical accuracy.
Its manifestations not gifts. Oh now it fits like a hand in a glove, with a scientific precision and a mathematical accuracy.
If you disagree, just renew your mind. Oh now it fits like a hand in a glove, with a scientific precision and a mathematical accuracy.
That is TWI doctrine of biblical accuracy in a nutshell.
I could go on an on with more examples, but the end result would still be [Oh now it fits like a hand in a glove, with a scientific precision and a mathematical accuracy.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Joh* Schoenh*** has an excellent tape series out about the Old Testament, should you care to check it out (these days)! ;)
I have a copy, and it is really worth listening to. :)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
def59
If you sat through advance piffle, he did spend a lot of time in the OT talking about Saul and the prophet Samuel.
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.