INC's officially blatant dishonesty

sophionsophion Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iglesia_ni_Cristo#Charles_Caldwell_Ryrie

Charles Caldwell Ryrie has criticized the INC for misquoting his Ryrie Study Bible regarding John 1:1 in the May/June 1984 issue of the Pasugo.
“

"In the annotations of his Ryrie Study Bible he had this to say about the phrase in John 1:1 and the Word was with God. In this verse the Word (Christ) is said to be with God (that is, in communion with and yet distinct from God). Therefore, when Dr. Ryrie says, that the Word is distinct from God he is saying the Word is not the same, but rather separate or different from God." (Pasugo 1984, pp. 14-15)
”

Ryrie has been quoted as saying, in a letter to Robert Elliff, the author of the book, Iglesia Ni Cristo: The Only True Church? "Anyone can look in my Study Bible and see how conveniently this author [the INC] omitted the last phrase in the note of John 1:1. The full note reads: “In this verse the Word (Christ) is said to be with God (i.e., in communion with and yet distinct from God) and to be God (i.e., identical in essence with God) If that is not clear enough to say that I believe in the full deity and equality of Christ, let anyone read the notes at John 10:30 and 20:28. The doctrinal summary in the back of the Bible under Trinity is also quite clear. "[94]

----
Official na pagpuputol. Thats a crystal clear deception. kasinungalingan direct from INCs highest leaders. tsk tsk tsk. :rolleyes: :bop:
«134567

Comments

  • MenorrahMenorrah Member PExer
    its an honest mistake...just missing the ellipses...
  • FerdinandFerdinand Member PExer
    Honest mistake, really? Gawain iyan ng mga kapartid mo dito eh. Si Angel, krams, thonycoors, ETEs, conic, ilang beses ng nahuli na pinuputol ang mga pangugusap tapos ikakabit sa ibang pangungusap.

    Parang part ng ng kultura ninyo iyan eh.
  • MenorrahMenorrah Member PExer
    Please accept my apologies...there are rules to follow when quoting and it keeps changing...MLA has been revised over and over again...but the intention is not to misquote but to tell that even a Trinitarian like Ryrie believes that the three are distinct persons, isnt that right?
  • theotechtheotech Member PExer
    Menorrah wrote: »
    its an honest mistake...just missing the ellipses...

    Is this statement "official" position of INC 1914 ? Do you have any link showing that manalo and his ministers have declaration or public apologies ?
  • KatholikonKatholikon Pax et Bonvm PExer
    That is a clear instance of Manalonian deception and duplicity through knowing and intentional misrepresentation and misinformation.

    That is no less than a kind of deception employed by Satan and his angels the daemons.

    And what is even more tragic is, the deception through misrepresentation is employed in a theological paper, which makes the crime of plagiarism even more grievous.

    The same duplicitous tactic of cutting one's messages and creating a mosaic out of the cuts so far removed from one's original context has been consistently and constantly employed by the Yglesia ni Manalo in their theological debates with Bro. Eli Soriano and his Ang Dating Daan, which are definitely better and more honest than any of the Yglesia ni Manalo's mass media programmes.
  • PyrosPyros Faith Under Fire PExer
    TRINITY!!!

    So DISTINCT from God, and YET still none can see the distinction...What a wanderful belief! :naughty:
  • TLGTLG The Dark Knight PExer
    Menorrah wrote: »
    its an honest mistake...just missing the ellipses...
    impossible!
  • tontontonton Let's stop and talk awhile. PExer
    Menorrah wrote: »
    its an honest mistake...just missing the ellipses...
    Ferdinand wrote: »
    Honest mistake, really?
    Menorrah wrote: »
    Please accept my apologies...there are rules to follow when quoting and it keeps changing...MLA has been revised over and over again...but the intention is not to misquote but to tell that even a Trinitarian like Ryrie believes that the three are distinct persons, isnt that right?

    Oh my god. I cannot fathom such negligence (if it was really unintentional, but I doubt it) coming from a high profile organization propagating spiritual "truths". Almost criminal.
  • PyrosPyros Faith Under Fire PExer
    ikulong na yan....!
  • MenorrahMenorrah Member PExer
    tonton wrote: »
    Oh my god. I cannot fathom such negligence (if it was really unintentional, but I doubt it) coming from a high profile organization propagating spiritual "truths". Almost criminal.

    students, professors, judges, even supreme court justices make mistakes with regards to proper quotation...

    look at how Pasugo improves in following rules in quotations...
  • TLGTLG The Dark Knight PExer
    Menorrah wrote: »
    students, professors, judges, even supreme court justices make mistakes with regards to proper quotation...

    look at how Pasugo improves in following rules in quotations...

    INC Version: In this verse the Word (Christ) is said to be with God (that is, in communion with and yet distinct from God).

    Original Version: In this verse the Word (Christ) is said to be with God (i.e., in communion with and yet distinct from God) and to be God (i.e., identical in essence with God).


    The omitted phrase is not even separated by punctuation marks, nor were they paragraphs or chapters apart.

    The omitted phrase is right there in the original sentence, so how can you convince us that its a mistake, its intentional!
  • MilliardoMilliardo Team Valor PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Menorrah wrote: »
    its an honest mistake...just missing the ellipses...

    So, this is the best defense the INC can come up with? Note what was quoted: "In the annotations of his Ryrie Study Bible he had this to say about the phrase in John 1:1 and the Word was with God. In this verse the Word (Christ) is said to be with God (that is, in communion with and yet distinct from God). Therefore, when Dr. Ryrie says, that the Word is distinct from God he is saying the Word is not the same, but rather separate or different from God." (Pasugo 1984, pp. 14-15)

    This is not merely an honest mistake, since the Pasugo not merely quoted him, but even gave its own explanation of the incomplete text, purposely omitting the next part, "and to be God (i.e., identical in essence with God)." Thus by omitting that part, the Pasugo is trying to make Ryrie seemingly to agree with INC teaching; add "and to be God", and one can see that Ryrie is far from agreeing and would go directly against what the INC teaches. Dishonest hypocrites.
  • PyrosPyros Faith Under Fire PExer
    I notice that in the wiki, the Pasugo is quoted not the other way around. If we have to believe it, there was no direct quotation from Ryrie, instead it was structured and presented as a sentence. What was the mistake then?
  • Lola_RoseLola_Rose IMPERSONATED PExer
    Menorrah wrote: »
    Please accept my apologies...there are rules to follow when quoting and it keeps changing...MLA has been revised over and over again...but the intention is not to misquote but to tell that even a Trinitarian like Ryrie believes that the three are distinct persons, isnt that right?

    True. And I agree: the MLA, CMS, and APA are continually revised. I used to work as a copy editor of academic journals, and it is true that the style manuals are updated every few years.

    Copy editing is a tedious profession, and punctuation errors, missing ellipses are common mistakes. Sometimes our mistakes were called to attention by the authors/scientists-- not grammatical mistakes, mind you, but minor stuff like ellipses...only because we weren't able to follow the latest edition of the CMS.
  • tontontonton Let's stop and talk awhile. PExer
    Menorrah wrote: »
    students, professors, judges, even supreme court justices make mistakes with regards to proper quotation...

    look at how Pasugo improves in following rules in quotations...

    Stop making excuses please. If the pasugo completed the quote, the meaning would be against your beliefs already.
  • Lola_RoseLola_Rose IMPERSONATED PExer
    Ang saya saya ni sophion oh :lol:

    Let us compare:

    PASUGO:
    "In the annotations of his Ryrie Study Bible he had this to say about the phrase in John 1:1 and the Word was with God. In this verse the Word (Christ) is said to be with God (that is, in communion with and yet distinct from God). Therefore, when Dr. Ryrie says, that the Word is distinct from God he is saying the Word is not the same, but rather separate or different from God." (Pasugo 1984, pp. 14-15)

    RYE's
    The full note reads: “In this verse the Word (Christ) is said to be with God (i.e., in communion with and yet distinct from God) and to be God (i.e., identical in essence with God)


    True. If the author of the Pasugo article placed ellipses, Rye wouldn't haved jumped into conclusion and accuse the INC of misquoting. Sentence omissions are acceptable, and there are style guides that require you to use ellipses.

    However, THE FACT that Rye himself said this "(i.e., in communion with and yet distinct from God)", the Pasugo author DID NOT lie by saying "Therefore, when Dr. Ryrie says, that the Word is distinct from God he is saying the Word is not the same, but rather separate or different from God."

    "(i.e., in communion with and yet distinct from God)" is the key/operative sentence here. DISTINCT = SEPARATE from God. Rye himself used the word "distinct." Ano pa ba ang ibig sabihin nun?
  • kuroihikarikuroihikari Moderator PExer
    It still could be an honest mistake.

    The writer was probably too excited when he read the first part of the sentence that he simply failed to write down the second part, and the editor failed to check the quote altogether, probably because of the same mistake, or of sheer incompetence.
  • PyrosPyros Faith Under Fire PExer
    Milliardo wrote: »
    So, this is the best defense the INC can come up with? Note what was quoted: "In the annotations of his Ryrie Study Bible he had this to say about the phrase in John 1:1 and the Word was with God. In this verse the Word (Christ) is said to be with God (that is, in communion with and yet distinct from God). Therefore, when Dr. Ryrie says, that the Word is distinct from God he is saying the Word is not the same, but rather separate or different from God." (Pasugo 1984, pp. 14-15)

    This is not merely an honest mistake, since the Pasugo not merely quoted him, but even gave its own explanation of the incomplete text, purposely omitting the next part, "and to be God (i.e., identical in essence with God)." Thus by omitting that part, the Pasugo is trying to make Ryrie seemingly to agree with INC teaching; add "and to be God", and one can see that Ryrie is far from agreeing and would go directly against what the INC teaches. Dishonest hypocrites.


    Ok, let's say you are right, but it is a fact that Ryrie's position is merely an opinion and not THE official trinitarian formula. Because if we compare this with the formula of the catholic church (and probably your eastern version), it is considered heretical. Ryrie may not agree with the author's position in the Pasugo, and contest the interpretation of what he wrote, but what the heck! Trinity has many versions after all.
  • kuroihikarikuroihikari Moderator PExer
    Lola_Rose wrote: »
    However, THE FACT that Rye himself said this "(i.e., in communion with and yet distinct from God)", the Pasugo author DID NOT lie by saying "Therefore, when Dr. Ryrie says, that the Word is distinct from God he is saying the Word is not the same, but rather separate or different from God."

    "(i.e., in communion with and yet distinct from God)" is the key/operative sentence here. DISTINCT = SEPARATE from God. Rye himself used the word "distinct." Ano pa ba ang ibig sabihin nun?

    The important part was that Ryrie used "AND". Unlike "OR" which implies an optional inclusion of a new idea, "AND" means that statements on both sides of it make up the whole idea of the sentence.

    By stopping right before "AND", it completely changed the meaning the sentence.
  • TotnakTotnak Theistic Apologist PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Lola_Rose wrote: »
    "(i.e., in communion with and yet distinct from God)" is the key/operative sentence here. DISTINCT = SEPARATE from God. Rye himself used the word "distinct." Ano pa ba ang ibig sabihin nun?

    the adjective distinct by definition and etymology, is not limited to the word "separate"...it also has the following definition depending on its usage....

    Definition of DISTINCT

    1: distinguishable to the eye or mind as discrete : separate <a distinct cultural group> <teaching as distinct from research>

    2: presenting a clear unmistakable impression <a neat distinct handwriting>

    3: archaic : notably decorated

    4: notable <a distinct contribution to scholarship>



    given the statements in question, it's more of the second definition rather than the first.....

    by cutting short the original article, the Pasugo writer must have had the intention of twisting the original message of the author to make it appear as supporting the Pasugo's objective.....

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file