Biblical Research

[Oakspear]

Mark O'Malley made a point in the "Are The Dead Alive" thread:

(bold type added by me)

It's understandable that the author of the work I quoted would make this error. The fine distinctions necessary to understand the text cannot be gotten simply from reading a book by VPW, an interpretation by EW Bullinger, and a concordance. One must be able to discern the parts of speech and the form of the word, as actually used in the text. With, simply, a concordance-level understanding of Greek, one wouldn't catch this.

Also, I honestly have a problem with this type of study, in general. It puts forward a proposition and then, rather than seeking to prove it, it shows how we should discount any scripture that disagree with it. I, frankly, find that sort of study to be dishonest. No offense to those who do subscribe to this sort of study, but it is IMHO. And YMMV, as always

The overwhelming majority of us who were involved in TWI had no prior experience studying or researching the bible. Few of us had ever encountered anyone who had, or read a theological work of any kind. Once exposed to PFAL, we learned some rudimentary biblical research skills, while at the same time the idea that no one (or hardly anyone) outside of TWI was even doing biblical research was hammered into our little minds.

The bolded section of Mark's quote illustrates a frequent method for making a doctrinal point in TWI. Remember the "key" that the few unclear verses must be understood in light of the many clear ones? It sounds like common sense, and almost axiomatic, but is it really true? Perhaps we're not really getting what the supposedly "clear" verses are saying and the "unclear" one is not an anomaly, a "proofreader's oversight" or a "forgery", but a red flag that maybe we should rethink what we believe about this particular subject.

I'm not saying that there aren't situations where an "unclear" verse is an anomaly, a "proofreader's oversight" or a "forgery", but that Wierwille, (and us too), were too quick to dismiss biblical evidence that disagreed with Way doctrine once his mind was made up.

To this day, ex-wayfers reject opinions that disagree with what was learned in PFAL without ever having seriously examined what was learned. Or compare what Wierwille taught with what Wierwille said others taught.

Edited January 24, 2006 by Oakspear

[Belle]

Oh Geeze, Oak, you've said a mouthful there!

It's so true it's scary. Here we were thinking we were the only ones on the face of the earth who knew jack about a concordance, Greek, Hebrew and orientalisms. We were the geniuses. I remember my grandmother telling me that they were learning Greek words in their Bible classes and I laughed because they couldn't *possibly* be taught correctly in the Baptist church.

So much of our own "research" was nothing more than looking up a word vee pee or craiggers had used and then re-looking up the scriptures they gave us and marking that word in our Bible. <_< There was no "real" research done on our part. We were looking for things that backed up and supported our TWIt doctrine. Maybe not intentionally, but that's what we did.

When things didn't line up, we skipped over them, held them in "abeyance" or called them the "difficult" verse that had to be twisted and dissected to make it fit with the "clear" verses. I'd say we didn't learn research but rather spin doctoring and butchering.

[templelady]

Can any one say "Athletes of the Spirit"???

[Thomas Loy Bumgarner]

Dr. Fredrick Danker, a retired professor at Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago has written a book called

Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study from Augsburg/Fortress Press which talks about Koinne Greek texts, Hebrew and Aramaic/Syriac manuscripts, concordances, Bible dictionaries, Dead Sea Scrolls, different English translations, commentaries from the Church Fathers and Reformers, etc which is far superior to any thing that The Way International ever taught. Nothing against Bullinger, Kenyon, Lamsa, Pillai, Errico, Smith Wigglesworth, Carnegie, Cliffe, Mosley, Peale, Stiles, Leonard, Copeland, Hagin, Derek Prince, Schuller, Ruben Archer Torrey, Albert Benjamin Simpson, etc. but Biblical Research(at least for me) is a hobby, not a lifelong calling. I have far more materials, including books on the Apocraphya/Psedepigrapha, Lost Books of

the New Testament(Gnostic and Ebionite) and the lost Book of Eden, just to name a few, plus additional books on Mideastern Biblical Culture(Victor Matthews, JL Packer and MC Tenney, James Freeman, Ralph Gower/Fred Wight, Howard Voss) and Handbooks such as Henry Halley, Robert Boyd, David and Patricia

Alexander, plus Learning Bible(NIV/CEV editions).

Edited January 24, 2006 by Thomas Loy Bumgarner

[Oakspear]

Can any one say "Athletes of the Spirit"???

A representative example.

Karl Kahler does a great job describing the inconsistancies in this "teaching" in The Cukt That Snapped.

There are definitely some athletic metaphors in th epistles, but there are also farming, building (wise master builder, i.e. architect), parenting, sheep-herding, and bond-slave comparisons as well. But for some reason military analogies are to be hunted down and eliminated.

There are plenty of examples in TWI doctrine. Jesus Christ Is Not God is full of misrepresentations of what Trinitarians believe as well as some scripture contorting.

Or how about the old "Score Five to Nothing" segment of PFAL from RHST? Not all of the five records cited mention speaking in tongues, but the assumption that SIT is there is used as proof that SIT was there.

[Raf]

I always thought the "Five to Nothing" scorekeeping was pretty good, though I never looked at it critically. I think three of them mention SIT outright, while the other two imply it fairly strongly.

Wait, one of them was the "Simon saw" verse, which meant that Simon had to see (or witness) something considered proof that "the Holy Spirit fell on them" or however it's phrased in that verse. I think SIT is as safe a bet as any on that one.

The other was Saul's conversion, and on that one you may have a point. There's nothing in the Acts record to suggest or hint that Saul spoke in tongues at that particular point in time. There's plenty of evidence he did so later.

[markomalley]

I don't remember 'five to nothing.' Too many years (yipee). Can somebody summarize it's doctrine and give me the supporting verses. Does CES have something on their site that demonstrates it?

Thanks.

[Raf]

There are five places in Acts where people are specifically said to have received the holy spirit.

In Acts 2, they show this by speaking in tongues.

In Acts 10, the house of Cornelius shows this by speaking in tongues.

In Acts 19, the disciples of Apollos show this by speaking in tongues.

That leaves two that are less clear:

Acts 8 does not say that anyone spoke in tongues, but it does say that "Simon SAW that through the laying on of hands the Holy Ghost was given..." Simon had to see something that could only be interpreted as evidence that the holy spirit was received. SIT is a reasonable assumption.

The final record is the conversion of Saul. Acts 9:17-19 give no indication that Saul spoke in tongues. However, I Corinthians makes clear that Saul (aka Paul) spoke in tongues more than anyone.

Five "receivings" of holy spirit, five incidents of speaking in tongues.

[Oakspear]

Yes, it's a reasonable assumption that what Simon saw was speaking in tongues, but it's plausible that it wasn't. Same with Saul on the road to Damascus. When he wrote Corinthians, he spoke in tongues more than "ye all", but it's an assumption that he spoke in tongues initially...maybe a reasonable assumption, but an assumption just the same.

An assumption can be made in these cases based on other supporting evidence, namely the records in Acts 2, 10, and 19. But what Wierwille is doing is using the assumptions as proof.

Every man who graduated from Baruch College had a moustache on graduation day. Look at these five graduation day photos. In three of them we clearly see moustaches. In this fourth one his face is covered by his hand, but what's under there? It has to be a moustache! In the fifth, we have a photo from years later. Look! A moustache! See: five graduates, five moustaches. Score: Five to Nothing

[CM]

what is speaking in toungues?

[Raf]

Oaks, did you catch that alumni magazine article they did on me a few months back?

[Oakspear]

Oaks, did you catch that alumni magazine article they did on me a few months back?

I did not. I do not receive the alumni mag. Although I attended Baruch, I did not graduate from there.

what is speaking in toungues?

What do you think it is?

[CM]

lol oaks....

it is an interesting discussion

for starters...and this is very 1st grade

replacing one word for another-same meaning

a thesoraus kind of....

alternate views, unconsidered paths

understood by angels...one's own angels

and those of others

who can hear the toungue and understand

ears to hear

eyes to see

how many times did Jesus say this?

[Raf]

Off topic

Here's the article, Oaks.

[lindyhopper]

and this is very 1st grade

:lol:

Yes, it is like asking a first grader how an alternate universe might exist.

:lol:

[Thomas Loy Bumgarner]

Another handbook is by Merrill Unger. Concordances are James Strong's Exhaustive, Robert Young's Analytical, Alexander Cruden's Complete. Interlinears of Hebrew and Greek are George Berry, and Jay Golden.

[CM]

there is no alternate universe

this is it

[CM]

everything points to you

must be something there

something that is of value

there isn't anyone who doesn't have abilities

to see the universe

to hear the angels

to detach from yourself

and see where the spirit leads

what is that would motivate a man

to do what Jesus did

he must have seen something

something real and here and now

knowing the scriptures wasn't it

it offered support only

the word from the spirit believed has power

and just who was Jesus defeating in the wilderness

the spirit led him there

he was there alone....

scripture quoting came from where?

Satan quoted scripture-so did Jesus

where was this happening?

there is only one God

the others are illusions