Dr. Making It Mean What It Never Meant Bob is once again misunderstanding and misapplying the classic WCG concept of how to study the Bible. You know, "Line up line, line upon line, here a little, there a little..."
In his "Kamala Harris selected for VP" comments Thiel says, as we would expect from Old School WCG....
"The 2020 presidential election is featuring people who are against many aspects of biblical morality.
The Bible itself warns that if the children of Israel sinned and did not repent, the following would happen:
"As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them..." Isaiah 3:12"
Bob goes on, as to be expected, that the Bible warns us the time would come when female rulers as well as those not racially Israelite would come on the scene. No really. He says this. "While Barack Obama may have been about 1/2 Israelite descent, Kamala Harris is less so." No really, he said that.
Bob then goes on to tell us that "since the time of Margaret Thatcher" he has felt likely that the USA would end up with a woman President. Horrified, he goes on to note that women already rule as Prime Ministers in Australia and New Zealand and UK and Canada have had their Queens. I'll spare us the part about his fears about "Aliens rising up."
The fact that modern female Prime Ministers seem to do a much better job than their male counterparts escapes him.
You can read his foolish Bronze Age misapplication of Isaiah 3:12 here:
You can read the actual meaning and context of "here a little, there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept" here:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2017/01/dear-bobi-repeat.html
But to the meaning of Isaiah 3:12.
And while I would not endorse the Israelite Bronze Age view of women as weak and troublesome so as to use their womanhood an analogy about how the men, rulers and priests were acting, it is generally understood that the concept or supposed "prophecy" is of a time to come when just before Jesus returns, women would rise to political positions over the lost, yet found Israelite nations thousands of years into the future. That is lame and dishonest to the text and intent.
As for my people, children are their oppressors - This refers, doubtless, to their civil rulers. They who "ought" to have been their "protectors," oppressed them by grievous taxes and burdens. But whether this means that the rulers of the people were "literally" minors, or that they were so in "disposition and character," has been a question. The original word is in the singular number (מעולל me‛ôlēl), and means a "child," or an infant. It may, however, be taken collectively as a noun of multitude, or as denoting more than one. To whom reference is made here cannot easily be determined, but possibly to "Ahaz," who began to reign when he was twenty years old; 2 Kings 16:2. Or it may mean that the "character" of the princes and rulers was that of inexperienced children, unqualified for government.
Are their oppressors - literally, 'are their exactors,' or their "taxers" - the collectors of the revenue.
And women rule over them - This is not to be taken literally, but it means either that the rulers were under the influence of the "harem," or the females of the court; or that they were effeminate and destitute of vigor and manliness in counsel. The Septuagint and the Chaldee render this verse substantially alike: 'Thy exactors strip my people as they who gather the grapes strip the vineyard.'
They which lead thee - Hebrew "They who bless thee, or call thee blessed." (See the margin.) This refers, doubtless, to the public teachers, and the false prophets, who "blessed" or flattered the people, and who promised them safety in their sins.
Cause thee to err - Lead you astray; or lead you into sin and danger."
And destroy - Hebrew "Swallow up."
As for my people, {k} children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they who lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
(k) Because the wicked people were more addicted to their princes than to the commandments of God, he shows that he would give them such princes, by whom they would have no help, but that they would be manifest tokens of his wrath, because they would be fools and effeminate.
Verse 12. - As for my people. Return is now made to the sins of the dwellers in Jerusalem, and the first thing noted is that the people suffer from the childishness and effeminacy of their rulers. The rulers are called "oppressors" by the way here, the sin of oppression being dwelt on later (vers. 14, 15). Here the emphatic words are "children," "women." Children (see ver. 4). The rulers are "children," or rather "babes" - foolish, capricious, cowardly. It is not clear that any prince in particular is meant; rather, by the plural form, the upper class generally seems to be intended, as in Isaiah 1:10, 17, 23, etc. Women; comp. Herod., 8:88, where Xerxes says that "his men have shown themselves women, and his women men;" and see also Virg., 'AEneid '-
"O vere Phrygia, neque enim Phryges." The rulers were womanly, i.e. weak, wavering, timid, impulsive, passionate, and are therefore called actual "women." There is no allusion to female sovereigns. They which lead thee cause thee to err; or, they which direct thee lead thee astray. Professing to point out the right path, they led men away from it. Destroy the way; literally, swallow it up, or obliterate it.
Sorry Bob
Your racist and sexist defects are clearly on display in, yet again, making the Bible mean what it never meant or could.
Us guys need to admit it, regardless of how macho or "studly" we are or wish to appear...
ReplyDeleteWE ARE ALL PUSSYWHIPPED in one way or another! ;-) The old saying about "The hand that rocks the cradle" is
very true!
'Us guys...' ha! ha!
DeleteOooh Veih,
ReplyDeleteZe Celts have Boadicea as Fury.
Nck
Bob is right about Israelites not ruling over us.
ReplyDeleteUSA has never had a Jewish President.
Now AOC discovered she has Jewish ancestry, if she becomes President, we may finally have a President with Jewish ancestry.
But, also, she is a woman - prophet Bob will still not be happy.
“'If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman“ ~ Margaret Thatcher
ReplyDeleteRod Meredith used to preach that it was a "scientific fact" that God made men smarter and women more sensitive. He even went so far as to say that men have larger brains.
ReplyDeleteThis was somewhere after he would mention that God made "blacks more athletic".
Truly cringe-worthy.
He was a horrible misogynist and bigot and the world is a better place without him.
Heheh. Tonto, you are most definitely a renaissance man. ;)
ReplyDeleteTyped her cronies.
Delete“The fact that modern female Prime Ministers seem to do a much better job than their male counterparts escapes him.”
ReplyDeleteIsn’t that like sexist?
What’s gender or color got to do with a person’s capacity to perform a job? It’s a person’s character that counts and morals that matters. The rest is a side issue.
The current occupant of the Oval Office has the demeanor of a reckless and willful teenaged boy. And, according to Armstrong teachings, his ancestry is fifty percent Assyrian! Moreover, Angela Merkel makes him look like an incompetent novice by comparison.
ReplyDeleteI have often observed that Margaret Thatcher exhibited more testicular fortitude than most of her contemporaneous "male" counterparts. And, while I think that the current occupant of the British throne has exhibited extraordinary grace and leadership, the first sovereign of her name (Elizabeth I) is considered by many historians (including this one) to be the greatest English monarch of all time.
It is a real shame just how much female intellect, talent, character and energy has been wasted down through the centuries. And I think that both the religious and political realms would benefit immensely from more input from the "weaker" sex. Bring on the women, let them rule over us (things might just improve)!
Bob's got it right on this one. Present woman leaders worldwide are ruling in the "good times" by historic standards. All they are doing is playing Father Christmas by passing the wealth around with their socialist policies. They are also tagging along in the worldwide moral slide. These Father Christmas leaders will be lost when the hard times arrive.
ReplyDeleteDennis's often quoted "line upon line.." interpretation is nonsense. The bible wasn't written so that only the big people seminary people can understand it.
@Anon 6:36PM
ReplyDelete“It’s a person’s character that counts and morals that matters.”
And THAT is exactly were things go wrong in the COG’s. If any of the lay members show any character, morals or signs of intelligent thinking (male or female), it is considered a ‘flaw’, ‘lack of faith’, ‘bad attitude’ etc.
The COG leaders want to rule over EVERYONE. And they will put the men down, just as they do with the women. But the approach is different I think: they will tell the men that they’re the head of the household, pleasing their testosterone driven egos (sorry men) and by doing so give the men a false sense of ‘leadership’. That will keep them happy and subservient to the COG leaders.
Could that be why these COG leaders don’t like women? Because they know that their little power playing tricks don’t work on women?
Yes, I am a women. And I’ve seen a big difference in the way our minister talking to me or talking to my husband. I’ve even encountered ministers at the FOT asking my husband a question about my work, whilst I was standing next to him ... And I’m sure that there’s a lot of women here that can give you plenty of examples like that..
10:04 PM
ReplyDelete“Dennis's often quoted "line upon line.." interpretation is nonsense. The bible wasn't written so that only the big people seminary people can understand it.”
I gotta disagree with this statement. Although it comes across on the surface as an unpretentious defence of the traditional Armstrongist interpretation as if it is the “plain truth” of Isaiah 28:10 it actually belies a heavy arrogance and ignorance as if HWA’s interpretation is infallible and those who hold to a different view are stupid. Anonymous also sounds jealous pooh-poohing those who actually study the Bible for years at theological colleges.
August 22, 2020 at 10:04 PM
ReplyDeleteJust sign your name Bob Thiel. Why the farce pretending to be anonymous?
Anon August 22, 2020 at 10:04 PM said "Dennis's often quoted "line upon line.." interpretation is nonsense."
ReplyDeleteActually one must know the history of the people, the times in which this was written in, archaeology, social-scientific, historical, criticism, and many more techniques in which Bob Thiel's education does not allow him to claim.
Most of us here are not scholarly as too the bible, so yes, one can misinterpret this passage from a ignorant mans perspective, essentially practicing our own personal confirmation bias.
Further anon writes "The bible wasn't written so that only the big people seminary people can understand it." This is a gross assumption once again based on not only anons confirmation bias, but the readers confirmation bias. This is psychological trickery of a certain someone that wishes to deceive the people here.
Who benefits here? One question to ask is, who is the person being talked about in this article? This is your hint.
-
The core issue is that Armstrongists, like their brothers the Branch Davidians, are immersed in the Old Testament. I should mention first that there is an emendation in my version of the Tanakh to Isa 3:12 that changes "women" to "boys" and making it match Isa 3:4. I could not find the source or rationale behind that emendation.
ReplyDeleteI think the characterization of women in Isa 3:12 probably does not require emendation and is based on the fact that the people of ancient Israel had a patriarchal society. And Isaiah spoke in terms of his society.
Armstrongists connect these passages (Isa 3) and their cultural import with the 21st Century by claiming that they comprise a predictive prophecy for us. One must understand that this is a hermeneutical presupposition - something that Gerald Waterhouse would have believed and applied automatically, of course, as if it were not an assumption. There is no carefully and credibly reasoned rationale behind this presupposition within Armstrongism that I know of. All we really have to go by in the way of chronology for Isa 3 is the phrase "in that day" which can be applied in many different ways.
In Isaiah's day, as well as women being precluded from leadership roles, Gentiles were looked upon as dogs. But this is not the view of the New Testament. Paul states explicitly:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
In spite of this statement of equality from Paul, many Jews in the early New Testament period sought to perpetuate the Old Testament culture. Hence, we have Paul's trouble with the Circumcision Party and the writing of Galatians. And Paul himself, formerly a good pharisee, seemed to have trouble with these innovative approaches. God did not strike everyone dead who wanted to cling to Old Testament culture. There was controversy, debate and reform over a lengthy period of time. But it seems that Armstrongists want to find all the mistakes of the early church Judaizers and make these mistakes their charter - including the status of women and Gentiles. Not only line upon line but error upon error.
1.08 AM and The Painful Truth
ReplyDeleteOther than playing Ziggy Freud with me, neither of you addressed my points. Not even one person in a million would see Dennis's complex "line upon line" interpretation in this verse. So why would God bother inspiring this verse? It makes no sense.
You both side stepped by point that the bible was written so that simple people can understand it. Today's mass education is only recent. Which means that complex interpretations are suspect.
Anon August 23, 2020 at 1:07 PM
ReplyDeletePeople like you read what you want into texts. The bible was written in a land, in a language, that the people of the time would understand the communication. You era by thinking there is a god behind the texts. There is not. I could tell you I could prove it but people seeking confirmation in their own belief system rarely step out and challenge their own beliefs.
I could tell you to read this or that but you never will rise up to the challenge. So don't lecture me that the bible was written so the common man could understand it. That is complete bullshit and a intellectual cop-out. The writings that make up that book called the bible were for the people of the time who would understand the context. You authoritative decree "hat the bible was written so that simple people can understand it" is not what a true scholar would tell you. Maybe a charlatan would, but not a true scholar.
the bible was written so that simple people can understand it.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible was written at a time when only a few elites could read, and even fewer could write. It was by no means meant for "simple people" as it was written by complicated people whose job it was to guide the simple people. The New Testament even contains a complaint that some of Paul's writings are easily misunderstood by simple people. If God inspired a book meant for simple people, it would contain neither any admittedly complicated and misunderstand able text, nor would it contain a complaint about such text.
I know that goes against the whole American individualistic ethos, but that's the fact of the matter.
Yes, sorry Bob...
ReplyDeleteAlthough Bob said to an audience in a FOT sermon that he doesn't blindly follow everything HWA said, to maintain the lineage of the Mythical True Church he made himself heavily dependent on him - including his questionable interpretation methods.
To support his posts, it's common for Bob to quote excerpts (usually lengthy ones at that) from HWA, Dr Hoeh, and other late WCG writers. And while Bob does support his posts with questionable sources, I was surprised today to see a supportive statement taken from fellow COGleader Mark Armstrong.