Thursday, November 17, 2016

Dave Pack: I am called to study the Bible more than you



God's most superfantabulous Church of God leader to ever have lived on this earth in millions of years wants all of his flock to know that he is a hard worker and that he has to study the Bible more than anyone else.

I’m involved in…and I hope you would do the same yourself…in the most fascinating pursuit of my life. Again I will add, I hope yours. I am studying probably three to six hours a day, and of course trying to do other things. I’m not called and paid to, basically, just study all day. I’m supposed to probably study more than any of you, because of my role. I understand that…I’m sure you do, too…but there is so much to learn.
The Bible is different, though. You can read something, and the next chapter goes backward in time without telling you it did. You have to know it well enough to know that it did…and sometimes, you have to stop and realize…Wait a minute, now what just happened? Are we still in the same timeline?…because we serve a God who says He wrote His book here a little, there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept, so that people would go forward, fall backward, be broken, taken and snared, because He doesn’t want the world at large to understand His book—and they don’t even understand that. So everybody studies the Bible and thinks they do, and they get taken and snared by it, because it doesn’t read like other books. 
Dave is the only one who can fully understand the Bible.

Mr. Armstrong puzzled over things…The Bible can be a book of conundrums, enigmas, mysteries and prophetic Gordian knots—but it is coming amazingly clear……Surely the one who restores all things—Elijah—would restore proper and full understanding of restoring all things. Would he not? If it is not just the Church, then the one who restores all things ought to, at least, tell the Church what doing that means…Right? Particularly, if every one of you is involved in it in ways that are going to blow your mind before you put your head on a pillow tonight…… 

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dave, Malm, Rod and other leaders all hide from members that there is a knowledge explosion in the world. Todays self help books do a very good job of magnifying Gods laws. They don't label them 'Gods laws,' but it is Gods laws, since Gods laws are perfection. The sliver leaders instead harp endlessly on bible technicalities that have absolutely no relevance to every day life. It's the ultimate counterfeiting.
Which is why even long term members are morally confused, and easily taken in with ridiculous teachings such as Dave 'common.'
It's a deliberate policy by the big people ministers, to keep the little people members ignorant, and hence easy to control.

DennisCDiehl said...

Dave: " I’m supposed to probably study more than any of you, because of my role. I understand that…I’m sure you do, too…but there is so much to learn."

"…because we serve a God who says He wrote His book here a little, there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept, so that people would go forward, fall backward, be broken, taken and snared, because He doesn’t want the world at large to understand His book—and they don’t even understand that. "

GOTCHA!

Isaiah 28:9-10

What we're seeing here is God mocking the priests and mimicking their drunken rules and laws that they give the people. God is not paying them a compliment but it is rather like God saying they go "blah blah blah," or talk like whining children in their drunken state. It has nothing to do with some profound teaching on the correct way to cobble the scriptures together to come up with truth. They teach the people like they are children and this is not a compliment.

Isaiah then goes on to say that God can play that game too if they wish, and will tell them to "do this, do that, a bit here, a bit there," and they will fall backwards and be overcome by God. In other words, God can take the childish, "blah blah blah" out of their way of teaching and knock them out some of his own.

Barnes Commentary notes:
"For precept must be upon precept - This is probably designed to ridicule the concise and sententious manner of the prophets, and especially the fact that they dwelt much upon the same elementary truths of religion. In teaching children we are obliged to do it by often repeating the same simple lesson. So the profane and scoffing teachers of the people said it had been with the prophets of God. It had been precept upon precept, and line upon line, in the same way as children had been instructed. The meaning is, 'there is a constant repetition of the command, without ornament, imagery, or illustration; without an appeal to our understanding, or respect for our reason; it is simply one mandate after another, just as lessons are inculcated upon children.'
Line upon line - This word (קו qav), properly means "a cord, a line;" particularly a measuring cord or line (2 Kings 21:13; Ezekiel 47:13; see the note at Isaiah 18:2). Here it seems to be used in the sense of "a rule," "law," or "precept." Grotius thinks that the idea is taken from schoolmasters who instruct their pupils by making lines or marks for them which they are to trace or imitate. There is a repetition of similar sounds in the Hebrew in this verse which cannot be conveyed in a translation, and which shows their contempt in a much more striking manner than any version could do -"
While perhaps not the most recommended translation, this one has captured, in this case the intent of the scripture.

"They speak utter nonsense. "
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)


So the next time your Pastor says, "We know how we are study God's word. It is line upon line, precept upon precept. Here a little, There a little, and God will reveal his truth to us, his chosen ones," just say "ummmm, no....that's not what that means."

God doesn't have a puzzle to solve and the true people are not defined as those who know how the puzzle all fits together by jumping around the Bible looking for the proof for their all too often human perceptions. You certainly cannot use this scripture in Isaiah to do that as if it was how God reveals truth.

http://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/search?q=diehl+here+a+little

ilija said...

Very interesting, I have frien in Canberra capital of Australia. He study Bible for about two years and after it he can tel you any scripture or anything that he do not need the Bible to look into it. He was disfelowship four time from Worldwide Church of God for that reason. Instead his minister should be proud of him not disfeloshiping him from church. How about it!

DennisCDiehl said...

The fact that Dave sets himself up to be the one who studies more than they all and then turns around and makes a scripture on how he thinks his god does it by making it mean what it does not mean, should give one pause on how well he does on all his other theological machinations.

His theological mania is beginning to present itself more and more. It will end badly.

Anonymous said...

2.06 AM. Hmm, I'm so sure of your opinion. Consider Christs love of riddles in the gospels. Didn't the Pharisees once say to Christ 'tell us plainly..,' which He refused. You could call Christ 'The Riddler.'

Byker Bob said...

It's not so much a question of quantity, as it is one of quality. If you study a lot, and all you get is constant self-fullness, it's of no value whatsoever. Less, with a little more accuracy would be preferable!

BB

James said...

Dennis wrote: It will end badly.

I agree. This is mania, and delusions of grandeur. Shades of Jim Jones perhaps?

Anonymous said...

...and lets add something else....

Does Dave even BEGIN to apply the godly principles of truth and justice that the Bible is loaded with..?

Like NOT gaining an inheritance dishonestly?
Like NOT cheating your HQ employees of their pay?
Like NOT lusting after members hard-earned money aside from tithes and offerings?

How about Isaiah 1?

DennisCDiehl said...

Context..context..context Dave.

7 And these (Prophets and Priests) also stagger from wine
and reel from beer:
Priests and prophets stagger from beer
and are befuddled with wine;
they reel from beer,
they stagger when seeing visions,
they stumble when rendering decisions.
8 All the tables are covered with vomit
and there is not a spot without filth.
9 “Who is it he is trying to teach?
To whom is he explaining his message?
To children weaned from their milk,
to those just taken from the breast?
10 For it is:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that[a];
a little here, a little there.”
11 Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
God will speak to this people,
12 to whom he said,
“This is the resting place, let the weary rest”;
and, “This is the place of repose”—
but they would not listen.
13 So then, the word of the LORD to them will become:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that;
a little here, a little there—
so that as they go they will fall backward;
they will be injured and snared and captured

Summary: "so...you drunken Priests who like 'do this and do that', and teach the people like they are mere children with no ability to understand? I, God, will give you some 'do this and do that by bringing nations who language YOU don't understand and you drunken sots will fall backwards, hurt yourselves, be restrained and hauled off into captivity by them."

Just sayin' Dave....

DennisCDiehl said...

Dave rewrites Revelation:

"Revelation 17:10 is still in our Bible—that Mr. Armstrong read in the early 1940s—where five resurrections had fallen, one is, and one is yet to come. The Bible is written from the perspective of the 1940s in that regard, and now we would say six are fallen and, according to the verse, one is yet to come. So we are deep into the end time, and the last one ended almost 71 years ago…at Hitler’s demise……"

Or much more likely in the context actual history and the authors intent...

"The ensuing vision is in part historical in part prophetic; the period 68-69 is presented as if it were in the future. We are told the seven heads are the seven mountains on which the woman sits and that the has had seven kings of which five are fallen, (NOTE: (Julius) Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius ; these make up the five who are fallen. 'One is' - Nero. The ancients, although the empire was not fully established till the time of Augustus, reckoned from Julius Caesar.") ...one now is and the sixth or Nero and the seventh, Galba, is not yet come, "and when he cometh he must continue a short space." And the eighth beasts, Vespasian was and is not, and yet is: that is he was proclaimed emperor by his troops in Judaea and in Alexandria in July, 69 ; but he finally came to power in December , 69." He (Vespasian) is said to be the last ruler of Rome; he is the Man of Sin , the Antichrist who will be destroyed by the Jewish Christ.

We are told the sixth king, Nero, who died in June of 68 now is. But the reign of Galba which began immediately and ended in 69 is clearly delineated as is the accession of Vespasian. We know further more that the siege of Jerusalem began late in January and ended on September 8, 70. Revelation was therefore written during this period. The author knew of the accession of Vespasian but not the termination of the siege of Jerusalem. In order to give himself two years of history to depict as prophecy, the writer pretended Nero was still living."

The religion of the Occident pp 476-77

Jewish zealots and Jewish Christians got the return of the wrong Father/Son. Titus, Son of Vespasian, destroyed Jerusalem in 70

Revelation is not for 2000 years later. It is for the rather immediate future of those to whom it is written to encourage them until it doesn't quite work out for them as often happens with "prophecy".

Connie Schmidt said...

In my experience , people who indulge studying the Bible in an excessive way like Dave, end up being very weird!

Sure, as a Christian, one should have a decent working overview of it, and initially, in the beginning spend some time becoming familiar with it.

Beyond that though , it is remarkably simple... Love God and Love People!

Black Ops Mikey said...

Yes, just like the Pharisees.

Uncle Davie should spend his time instead studying books about nuclear physics, chemistry, engineering, anatomy, mathematics and all things science.

First of all, they are much harder to understand than the Bible (and you can take that any way you want), but when you finish decades and centuries from now, you will have a much more useful body of knowledge, unless, of course, you are totally incapable of absorbing factual material, in which case neither the Bible or STEM is going to do you one whit of good.

I understand though, that Wadsworth may need new people to work in garbage collection for the city, seeing as how Davie Pack has generated so much of it.

You make a mess, you clean it up.

Actually, Wadsworth should force him to do it for free as a sentence of community service.

Anonymous said...

Connie, I don't agree. I study the bible at least half a hour a day, and the majority of the time, I see something new. The bible is deliberately written that way. There are layers of depth, and different angles at which verses can be viewed. Also when studying, one is absorbing attitudes. People radiate attitudes, and so do books, including the bible. Hence people grow by studying the bible.
Yours is the common belief that the bible is like a technical book, such as a book on chemistry or similar. So once you read it, what's the point of re reading it. But it is a mistaken belief as I explained about.
I suggest you reassess you point of view.
The ministers should be shouting this from a roof top, rather than it appearing on a 'dissident ' site. Shame on the ministers.

Anonymous said...

6.23 AM
yes, Christ warned of Daves money grubbing with His 'you have turned my house of prayer in a den of thieves.'

Michael said...

El Packo wrote:

"...the next chapter goes backward in time without telling you it did. ...
because He doesn’t want the world at large to understand His book"

Either that, or because it was written in a poorly organized, disjointed manner as much of ancient literature was. Didn't consider that possibility, did you Dave?

Anonymous said...

"He doesn’t want the world at large to understand His book."

Members of the clergy love to make pronouncements like this. Any discerning individual knows better than to claim to know what God wants, or what God thinks. All we have to go on, if we choose to accept scripture, is scripture. We can say things like, "we read in scripture that." Fine. But to make pronouncements about what God wants, or thinks, is presumptuous in the extreme. We don't know, and cannot know, such things.

Regardless...what a foolish thing for Pack to say.

Anonymous said...

9.56 AM I disagree. Christ did say that certain truths were given to 'babes' but not the wise of the world. It's the reason He gave for using parables. And we can know Gods attitudes, though not the specifics when it cones to prophecy.
Dave and others should be expounding Gods laws rather than this obsessive prophesy speculation.

Gross Filth said...

Dave Pack reasoned,
Surely the one (fill in the blank)...would (fill in the blank)... Would he not?

Thank you Dave for setting the precedent for using this type of reasoning, because now we can follow with the same reasoning all day long. e.g:

Surely God would make sure his one and only prophet gets it right, with zero errors, would he not?

Surely God would want many people to understand the message if he commanded his servants to preach the gospel to every creature, and to all nations, would he not?

If you truly were Elijah, surely God would make it obvious, without you trying to convince us, would he not?

Surely God would strike down those who scoff his prophet to the extent that you are scoffed, would he not?

Connie Schmidt said...

ANON 9:08

Im not saying NEVER read the Bible, or look to it for inspiration or the like. I peruse the Bible many times a week. However, excessive, digging and forcing like Dave is doing (and as I have seen others do) usually ends up in weirdness and an unbalanced person in my experience.

Byker Bob said...

One view of the parable thing is this: After Jesus explained the parables to the disciples, and the explanation was recorded by the writers of the gospels, then anyone who read the gospels thereafter could understand them perfectly. No need to get all superstitious now in 2016! It was the Pharisees, the general crowds back then, or select others who were not a party to Jesus' explanation from whom the meanings were concealed. It's not as if people today need a Herbert W. Armstrong or a David Seepack to explain the parables. The stupid additional explanations those two jokers come up with somehow always relate either to themselves personally, or to their bogus prophecy mold.

BB

Anonymous said...

wikileaks:the one and only one David C. Pack

"All of my mistakes are the mistakes God had wanted me to make, so I would continue to humble myself again, to Him. God is my teacher and this is what He told Me to say. This is what you all should now know about ME. God picked ME and ME alone to carry this heavy burden, now who does that remind you of? Don't answer yet, we don't want to get too far ahead of MY..myopic..err..uhh.I mean God's plan, sorry about that. Do you see what God just did now? He used ME and caused ME to become tongue-tied because you are not ready yet. We are both very disappointed in you! Don't you see?! Now, If you people would only obey and think only of the one He is working through then I wouldn't have to suffer in embarrassment of YOUR ERRORS!! You all need to know your place! And God will let ME know when you are ready to know what HE and I already know. So, people get ready....or a Tragedy's a coming!"

Anonymous said...

Byker Bob wrote, "...anyone who read the gospels thereafter could understand them perfectly."

BB, I can only assume that you have never read any commentaries on the Gospels.

I lead a Bible study class that studies the Revised Common Lectionary readings for the week. I often have to tell the class that there are different understandings of a passage. In particular, the Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-13) has no commonly agreed upon interpretation. This is the Gospel lesson for Year C Proper 20 (last September). That week I spent most of my time listing alternative explanations for this parable.

Here is what one commentator says about this parable: "The parable of the unjust steward poses significant theological challenges... Further, a cluster of exegetical problems complicates any plain sense reading of the text."

If you think you understand this parable perfectly, you are welcome to explain it to my class when it comes around in the lectionary again three years from now.

Byker Bob said...

On one hand, you'd be making a false assumption that I either didn't know about commentaries, or didn't read them, 5:29. On the other, commentaries are often dismissed as not being the inspired word of God, and not carrying the same weight as the Bible itself. While the teachings of religious leaders are often simply verbal commentary, many people unfortunately use the commentary of their own leaders to filter and rule out other, often very valid interpretations. In Armstrongism, as an example, confirmation bias nearly always played into the alleged value of what was written in the various commentaries.

You bring up a new aspect of the parables which I've not seen discussed on any of the blogs and forums over the past 15 years, and as such I find it very interesting and plan to delve more deeply into the parable of the unjust steward. I've always found great identity with this parable, because in my own career, one of my chief roles has been that of a buffer between my employers (when I've had them) and the customers, or as now, between my manufacturers and the customers. This has often meant going against perceived authority to make sure that the customers' best interests were looked after, and that their needs were met. It has also involved insulating and protecting my employer or the manufacturers from the malice of an occasional customer. In other words, as a middle guy, I've been in a position to control situations to make sure that they were resolved in a right, and ethical way. This parable speaks to a relatively limited subset of humanity, but in a greater sense, it also speaks to each and every person who might be caught in the middle of difficult interpersonal situations. The lesson is that if you take proper care of everyone with whom you deal, you, too, will be taken care of. It presents a resolution for situations in which conflicting sides must dealt with, and handled ethically. The end result of the parable is a guided compromise. It flows along the same lines as the Old Testament concept of jubilee.

BB