This Posting is for Robert Thiel, only,
as I am sure he will read it shortly.
Whatever the context, you Robert, as head of God's one surviving True Church, keep taking Isaiah 28:10 out of it.
On August 31, 2020, you repeat, for the umpteenth time, your mistaken exegesis on how one is to study the Bible. In classic WCG mode, you once again make Isaiah 28:10 mean what it never meant.
Today, and once again, you perpetuate the error...
"The Bible Supports the View that It Tends to Literally Interpret Itself"
Notice what the prophet Isaiah taught:
Whom will he teach knowledge? And whom will he make to understand the message?…For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little”… But the word of the LORD was to them, “Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little,” (Isaiah 28:9,10, 13 NKJV)." Should you literally believe the Bible?
====================================================
In the past, you complained....Dennis Diehl, and many others, have ignored and/or despised the following instructions as to how to understand doctrine:
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:9-10,)"
It is you, Bob, who ignoring the context and making this mean what it does not.
so once again...
The above scriptures, very familiar to all COG ministers and members alike, have been misquoted, misused, and misunderstood for decades. Ministers of every denomination quote them when asked "just how should we study the Bible?" It is taken to mean that one studies the Bible line by line, topic by topic, skipping over here and then over there to find similar ideas and phrases that one can simply stitch together and come up with God's eternal truths on all things.
The modern term might be called "Proof Texting". Often it is simply the "hunt and peck" method to showing what you already want to be so is so.
In our common COG experience we have the Dave Packs, Gerald Flurry, Ron Weinland types, along with the bit players in the form of yourself, who employ this tiptoeing through the Bible, "here a little, there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept " and coming up with pure trash and self-righteous drivel instructing good men everywhere how to interpret scripture through their mistaken notions about them.
Dave Pack can wander all over the Bible, Old Testament and New and come up with his weird and strange ideas about himself as spoken of by the Prophet Haggai, like anyone ever heard of Haggai, and get members gyrating in their seats. You can spend all day making Bronze Age weather explanations the modern-day ones and tell us it is how God "tries" to get our attention. They all do by looking here a little and there a little, putting line upon line together, and coming up with weird and strange explanations galore.
...they and you are mistaken.
To begin with, Isaiah is written to the drunken priests of Ephraim. I know "context" is not a word most COG ministers are familiar with, but context is important. In verse 7 we see the priests and prophets are being chided, to say the least, for being drunk with beer and wine, whether actually, figuratively or both, befuddled and stumbling while they are seeing visions and making rather important decisions. Not exactly the way to go but with the Assyrians beating on the door, understandable.
Not a very pleasant sight and the information they come up with is, to both Isaiah and Bible God, puke.
In reality, it is Isaiah mocking these fools with the following which has been taken as "here a little, there a little, line up line, precept upon precept" and how to study the Bible. Some commentators feel this is what the priests are saying to Isaiah for chiding them. They definitely are NOT having a discussion on how to study the scriptures!
so once again...
How NOT to Study The Bible
(Or at least which scriptures not to use explaining how)
By The Apostate Former Minister
(Or at least which scriptures not to use explaining how)
By The Apostate Former Minister
(Your label Bob)
Isa 28:10 (KJV)
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little. The modern term might be called "Proof Texting". Often it is simply the "hunt and peck" method to showing what you already want to be so is so.
In our common COG experience we have the Dave Packs, Gerald Flurry, Ron Weinland types, along with the bit players in the form of yourself, who employ this tiptoeing through the Bible, "here a little, there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept " and coming up with pure trash and self-righteous drivel instructing good men everywhere how to interpret scripture through their mistaken notions about them.
Dave Pack can wander all over the Bible, Old Testament and New and come up with his weird and strange ideas about himself as spoken of by the Prophet Haggai, like anyone ever heard of Haggai, and get members gyrating in their seats. You can spend all day making Bronze Age weather explanations the modern-day ones and tell us it is how God "tries" to get our attention. They all do by looking here a little and there a little, putting line upon line together, and coming up with weird and strange explanations galore.
...they and you are mistaken.
To begin with, Isaiah is written to the drunken priests of Ephraim. I know "context" is not a word most COG ministers are familiar with, but context is important. In verse 7 we see the priests and prophets are being chided, to say the least, for being drunk with beer and wine, whether actually, figuratively or both, befuddled and stumbling while they are seeing visions and making rather important decisions. Not exactly the way to go but with the Assyrians beating on the door, understandable.
7 And these 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.
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.
In reality, it is Isaiah mocking these fools with the following which has been taken as "here a little, there a little, line up line, precept upon precept" and how to study the Bible. Some commentators feel this is what the priests are saying to Isaiah for chiding them. They definitely are NOT having a discussion on how to study the scriptures!
9 “Who is it he (Isaiah to the Priests or they to him in scoffing) is trying to teach?
To whom is he explaining his message? to those just taken from the breast?
To children weaned from their milk,
10 For it is:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that[a];
a little here, a little there.”
Who are you talking to? (Either Isaiah to the drunken priests or they to Isaiah ) Children? You sound like children. (Or Isaiah sounds like a child to them in "Who does he think he is?" mode)
blah, blah, blah, nah nah-nah nah nah, do this, do that, rules here, rules there. Always the rules!
Bible God is mocking these men and accusing them of baby talk. In context, to me and others, it seems more of Isaiah mocking them in their drunken state than they him but either way, it is not a treatise on how to study the Bible. It's an accusing blow out between Isaiah, Bible God, and the Priests with the Assyrians waiting in the wings.
In the original Hebrew, the phrase in Isaiah 28 verses 10 and 13 is: "sav lasav sav lasav, kav lakav kav lakav" It is pure gibberish and akin to our "la la la la" and "blah blah blah." It is a mocking tone imitating the drunken gibberish of the priests and prophets of Ephraim and Judah as Assyria knocks at the door to scrape them off the earth. It might also be that the drunken priests are mocking Isaiah as It is NOT a scripture one should use to teach how to study the Bible that's for SURE!
"You want baby talk? I, the Lord, will give YOU baby talk. Want to make more fun of Isaiah? Get ready for this..."
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.
10 For it is:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that[a];
a little here, a little there.”
Translation:
Who are you talking to? (Either Isaiah to the drunken priests or they to Isaiah ) Children? You sound like children. (Or Isaiah sounds like a child to them in "Who does he think he is?" mode)
blah, blah, blah, nah nah-nah nah nah, do this, do that, rules here, rules there. Always the rules!
Bible God is mocking these men and accusing them of baby talk. In context, to me and others, it seems more of Isaiah mocking them in their drunken state than they him but either way, it is not a treatise on how to study the Bible. It's an accusing blow out between Isaiah, Bible God, and the Priests with the Assyrians waiting in the wings.
In the original Hebrew, the phrase in Isaiah 28 verses 10 and 13 is: "sav lasav sav lasav, kav lakav kav lakav" It is pure gibberish and akin to our "la la la la" and "blah blah blah." It is a mocking tone imitating the drunken gibberish of the priests and prophets of Ephraim and Judah as Assyria knocks at the door to scrape them off the earth. It might also be that the drunken priests are mocking Isaiah as It is NOT a scripture one should use to teach how to study the Bible that's for SURE!
"You want baby talk? I, the Lord, will give YOU baby talk. Want to make more fun of Isaiah? Get ready for this..."
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.
14 Therefore hear the word of the Lord, you scoffers
who rule this people in Jerusalem.
Translation:
So then mister priest and prophet, you want to make fun of me for warning you? If that's the way you want to be then that's the way the Lord will teach you. Blah...blah...blah...nah nah nah nah nah...do this, do that. You like rules? I got rules! You will be over run by your enemies, you who rule Jerusalem. I will arrange for Assyria and the Babylonians to take you away.
(They would have no matter what, but Israel, being in the way between Africa and Europe, was always going to get overrun by someone. They spent a lot of their time trying to figure out why God was punishing them when in fact they just were in the way to the major nations seeking control as major nations are wont to do.)
Isaiah 28:10, in CONTEXT, is Bible God/Isaiah mocking the drunken Priests of Israel (Ephraim) for issuing their rules to the people to "do this, do that" which sounds like baby talk and stupid, being drunk, while the enemies of Israel approach to take them away. It can also be viewed as the drunken priests scoffing at Isaiah first for warning them. Depends on the commentary. It cannot, however, be taken as the premier scripture on how to study the scriptures.
CONTEXT BOB.... It's not about how to study your Bible
27 comments:
Dennis, you seem to be neglecting the oddity that our Befuddled Bob makes two differing levels of errors interpreting Scripture. Yes, he fails to understand the context of Isaiah 28, and as a result he teaches nonsense. But at least that particular nonsense is consistent with what he learned from his spiritual Big Daddy Rod Meredith and HWA.
Bob, however, takes things a step further and adds NEW errors that he pulls from Catholic, Mayan, Hindu, and other religions' prophecies. For a man with a Th.D. and a Ph.D., Bob has a stunning about of "knowledge" to UN-learn if he ever wants to be a proper teacher.
Anybody who believes they have arrived at ultimate truth has for all intents and purposes become unteachable.
Something has to snap to get their attention. Bob has had all manner of things snapping all around him, so apparently he is immune to any possible course corrections. Despite red flags, negative feedback, and warning signs that so many of us have seen, he believes that his life and ministry are trending in the di-rection of an e-rection, straight upwards, and preparing him for what is for him, his imminent reward. Until he realizes that, to put it crassly for emphasis, he has spiritual E.D., he will continue with his delusions.
something has to snap
Bob is wound up so tightly that he is absolutely in danger of snapping. What we don't know yet is whether he will snap outwardly like Denis Rohan and Bob's fellow LCG member Terry Ratzmann, or inwardly like Philip Apartian and LCG pastor Karl Beyersdorfer.
Bob doesn't understand the "great tribulation": was the time of righteous vengeance for the murder of the Son of God in which no flesh should be saved alive. But was. 1335 days from Av 10, 70 AD to Nisan 15, 74 AD??
Bob doesn't understand Mat 24:14. The gospel had been preached to the whole world long ago - 1Cor 10:11; Col 1:23 and since that time has been available in written form.
Here a little , there a little. An exploration in usage. Use the first letter of each verse to spell out an overall meaning...
T - Thou shall not steal. Exodus 20:15
H - Honor thy father and mother. Exodus 20:12.
I - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1
E - Early will I seek thee. Psalms 63:1
L - Lo, I'm with you always. Matthew 28:20
F - For with God nothing shall be impossible. Luke 1:37
A - As for God, his way is perfect. Psalms 18:30
L - Love is patient, 1 Corinthians 13:4
S - Seek ye first the kingdom of God. Matthew 6:33
E - Every good and perfect gift is from above. James 1:17
So therefore, encoded in scripture "here a little, there a little" is the phrase THIEL FALSE !
So love and peace is to be sought with many but not Bob Thiel ? Or whoever is the current clown target for light entertainment.
What a time to be alive.
Here is how he actually teaches it:
You must take the whole Bible in its entire context, getting all of the scriptures in that Bible on anyone subject, before you can come to the knowledge of that particular subject from God's point of view.
"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little..." (Isa. 28:9-10).
That is how the converted mind is to study the Bible. Yet, when the unconverted study God's Word a little here and a little there, they are still not able to understand the message of God's truth because they do not have His Holy Spirit guiding them. That Holy Spirit — the very mind and understanding of God — is the power that inspired those words in the first place, and without that Spirit to inspire the understanding, the door to the Word of God remains shut! (The Holy Spirit is given only to those who obey God — Acts 5:32.) Continuing from Isaiah:
"... But the word of the Lord was unto them [those who disobey] precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken" (Isa. 28:13)
There are no errors in this teaching.
The concept taught by the ACOGs through the "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little," interpretation is correct. That knowledge is scattered all over the place is self evident. I find Dennis's complex interpretation hard to believe considering that the bible is written to be understood by youths, the uneducated and simple minded.
Going to try this again because my comment was deleted, and context is important right? This is what he actually teaches:
You must take the whole Bible in its entire context, getting all of the scriptures in that Bible on anyone subject, before you can come to the knowledge of that particular subject from God's point of view.
"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little..." (Isa. 28:9-10).
That is how the converted mind is to study the Bible. Yet, when the unconverted study God's Word a little here and a little there, they are still not able to understand the message of God's truth because they do not have His Holy Spirit guiding them. That Holy Spirit — the very mind and understanding of God — is the power that inspired those words in the first place, and without that Spirit to inspire the understanding, the door to the Word of God remains shut! (The Holy Spirit is given only to those who obey God — Acts 5:32.) Continuing from Isaiah:
"... But the word of the Lord was unto them [those who disobey] precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken" (Isa. 28:13).
Where is the error in this teaching?
Many Protestant churches of the fundamentalists-dispensationalists kind make the same mistake as Thiel. They take scriptures that were intended for the ancient Israelites, and misapply them to those of us under the New Covenant. Their obsession with modern day Israel is a good example of this. They'll qoute scriptures, especially prophecies, that were fullfiled centuries ago, claiming that they're to be fullfiled in our time. The main reason why they get it wrong is they fail to comprehend the promises made to Israel through Moses, were canceled in 33 AD. The only promise the Jews have today is the one made to Abraham, the same one we, as believers in Christ, have. Sadly, the ACOG's and the fundamentalists-dispensationalists spend too much time in he Old Covenant, and too little in the New. Moses has blinded them. (II Cor 3:6-18)
You must take the whole Bible in its entire context... Where is the error in this teaching?
That teaching is correct. However, Isaiah 28 isn't teaching it. And if you have so little respect for the actual context of Isaiah that you insist on forcing your desired meanings onto its words inappropriately, it's unlikely that you'll be able to understand the whole Bible in its entire context.
Well Herbert Armstrong did teach that the Bible was a coded book. Congratulations Tonto. It looks like you cracked the code!
During the 1960s and 1970s, most members in the WWCG were new to Christianity, so the ministers were often looked upon as junior gods. Dennis wants a return to these good old days by convincing his audience that they need seminary trained bible experts to instruct them what the bible really, really means. This is like in Daniel 3 where all the people were expected to worship the golden statue. How dare the silly little people decide for themselves what to believe.
the bible is written to be understood by youths, the uneducated and simple minded.
When the New Testament was written, fewer than 20% of the population of the Roman Empire was able to read. More than 80% of the population was not able to understand the Bible without someone else reading it to them. Until the last 500 years or so, the Bible was always taught and understood by a community of believers, not by individuals who had the ability and the liberty to disagree.
When the New Testament was written, fewer than 20% of the population of the Roman Empire was able to read. More than 80% of the population was not able to understand the Bible without relying on "experts" to read it to them. Before the Protestant Reformation, the Bible was always taught and understood by a community of believers, not by individuals who had the ability and the liberty to disagree.
Bob is not going to read this.
Critical Race Theory is Marxist, as Dr. Bob should know. And is related to Marxism and Wokeness. All three have a great deal obviously in common. It goes back to most influential speculative idealist philosopher of the early 19th century, George Hegel. From Hegel, the Left since his time has, wittingly and not, adopted several of the pillars of Hegelian philosophy, these including his statism, historicism, and, much more importantly, his dialectical approach and metaphysical worldview.
This is clearly anti-Biblical, as all Christian scholars affirm.
Leftism since Hegel thinks dialectically, moves dialectically, and applies dialectical thought not just to its targets but to everything, including itself and even its own dialectic.
Hegel is a key progenitor of communism, liberationism, and ultimately Wokeness. This philosophy should be thought of in the same way that Hegel thought of it: as a religion in its own right, with its own notion of deity, metaphysical commitments, and eschatology.
Bob is not up to the task of refuting it.
2.26 PM. My reference point is the bible rather than what some did historically. Scratch the surface of your "taught and understood by a community of believers," and one will find strong personalities lording it all the group's faith. Just like in Armstrongism. The bible's "don't lord it over the members faith" in both 2 .Cor 1:24 and 1 Peter 5:3 together with 1 These.5:21 "prove all things" means that it is the responsibility of each individual to study their bible and draw their own conclusions. This is further endorsed by the example in Acts 17:11 of the Bereans daily examining their bibles. Even in the synagogue system, people were permitted to stand up and express their personal biblical beliefs as in Acts 13:15 "..if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on."
Reading dissident sites like the Jehovah's Witnesses with their many parallels to the WWCG, one finds constant complaints about their "teachers" breathing down their necks, insisting on a certain interpretation of the bible.
This was and still is the problem with the HWA ministers. The narrow gate is viewed as impractical, but don't get me started on that one.
Well said.
Anonymous 9:56 wrote, “There are no errors in this teaching.”
If the methodology you describe is all there is to it, how could HWA have been so wrong? It is because once you collect what you think is all the scripture on a given topic, you must then interpret it. Gathering all the scriptures together sounds like the right thing to do but it does not ensure that you will not misinterpret what you have collected. Every heretic will tell you how exhaustive their study has been. At the interpretation level is where the direction of the Holy Spirit is vital. More about this in a second.
HWA started with another religionist’s interpretation. Armstrongism is essentially a rehash of what a man named G.G. Rupert believed. Out of this interpretation grew the two volumes of the extrabiblical Compendium of World History, companion pieces to the Bible and the Armstrongist declaration of historical realism. The methodology you describe permitted HWA’s interpretation of the Bible, along with the Compendium, to lock down a fantasy known as British-Israelism. And the package continued to develop.
The question is why did the methodology you outline, like a sales pitch, so profoundly fail? It is because God does not work through one person to establish doctrine. When the church began in the first century, there was a branch that focused on the Jews and a branch that focused on the Gentiles. One branch was led by James and the other branch led by Paul. Then to make it more interesting, God revealed the fact that Gentiles could also become Christians to Peter. There may have been one man in charge of the organizational activities of the Ekklesia but not the establishment of doctrine. That’s why there was a conference with multiple leaders in Jerusalem. Paul didn’t just send out a “member letter.”
HWA sat in a public library, was already familiar with Millerite doctrine and Rupertism, and came up with something that sounded a lot like Millerism and Rupertism. Did the Holy Spirit really bring that about? Did God give the truth to just one Millerite? I think even HWA thought that was going to be a difficult idea to sell so he came up with the conspiracy theory that the true church and gospel had been suppressed for eighteen and a half centuries. That was his self-generated bona fides for disregarding the entire Christian church and its history.
I will go no further. The sources of information on this are abundant. Many are discussed on this blog.
Scout
Why how erudite and pedantic, 7:52! You are obviously very skilled in the usage of your thesaurus, but such a simplistic thinker that you fall for the old "false flag gag"! My question for you is why is Vladimir Putin so "unwoke". Why are all communist leaders considered to be such racist barbarians by all the leaders of free nations? Does some other Hegellian Marxist process cause communism in actual practice to negate, eschew CRT, DEI, and wokeness?
he will
The sources of information on this are abundant.
Weird. When other people say that, they are accused of coping out, resorting to soundbites and of being incapable of generating an adequate response. Now their accuser does it himself!
Well, as they say, coincidence is not evidence of causation! Ponder that as you sip on your ice cold Mountain Dew!
Anonymous 8:41 wrote, "Weird"
I don't see anything weird about it at all. I told you where the error was. It was HWA's ego-centric doctrinal development in isolation. Although his work was not orginal he claimed originality. Did you ever hear him mention G.G. Rupert?
Armstrongists come to this blog, zip in and lay a small sound-bite and then disappear. I am still here and am willing to engage in discussion. Galatians 2:6-9 is a good example of what HWA was not. He did not work with other Christians to see if what he was doing had merit like Paul did. This is the source of much of his error. Instead, he waged war against Christians and migrated further and further away from Christianity until Armstrongism becaome a portfolio of heresies.
Now its your turn.
Scout
Agree. They also are mocking Nazi grammar chiefs on others but make spelling mistakes themselves, that the Sabbath keeping Christians don't dwell on.
Thiel should put up a greenscreen to hide those curtains, and then add in any background he wants, if he knows about chromakeying. He could at least have a picture of better curtains.
Post a Comment