penworks

Since I'm preoccupied with research issues, I figured I'd check the current TWI web site research page just to see whether or not they've changed their approach to the Bible and claims of "knowing how to find the accuracy of the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts." IMO, what they're currently doing is the same thing VPW promoted from when I was involved back in 1970-87. I'd be curious about what the "wrong doctrines" are that they've changed...it seems to me VPW made a doctrine out of his methodology, but I could be wrong... TWI Biblical Research 2010

...and ...Pg. 104 VPW: “If the Word can be broken at any one place, The Word crumbles from Genesis to Revelation. Either the whole Bible is God’s Word from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 or none of it is God’s Word.” So, here he clearly states the Bible is God’s Word. He does not qualify the Bible by saying “in the original texts” of the Bible, nor does he say which Bible, although he uses the KJV as his text for the class so by implication accepts the canon used in that version.

Hi there, George. Well, I've been re-reading some of these posts and thought you might get a kick out of this ection of PFAL that I've located for you: PFAL BOOK pg. 103 (1971 edition) "By deductive logic, if God is perfect, then the logos, Jesus Christ, has to be perfect. If God is perfect and Christ is perfect and The Word is given as holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, then God’s Word must be perfect also. God is perfect, so Jesus Christ is perfect, so the revealed Word of God is perfect. Consequently the words which make up The Word must also be perfect. This is why if any other word had been used than the preposition pros in John 1:1 and 2 the whole Bible would fall to pieces because of imperfect usage of words. To have a perfect Word, the words must be perfect and the order of the words must be perfect. ...God is perfect, The Word is perfect, and therefore The Word means what it says, and says what it means. God has a purpose for everything He says, where He says it, why He says it, how He says it, to whom He says it, and when He says it." END OF PFAL BOOK QUOTE. I suspect most of us are aware of the endless problems this leads to when dealing with various translations and versions... Anyhow, just thought I'd add this here for the record. Cheers!

Ditto. Cheers to taking our chances...

Original question of this thread:...”but something was bothering me and it just came clear to me today and it is the idea that the only truth is in the bible. really? that's a pretty stupid way of thinking once i look at it in the light of day. and how'd i get to thinking like that? i think it started with the idea that "all things that pertain unto life and godliness are contained herein" or whatever the way international said about the bible. again, really?” Waysider reminds us: PFAL It wasn't just a class. It was indoctrination into fundamentalism. From what I've figured out, The Way’s promoting the idea that the only source for truth is the Bible comes from a conservative segment in Protestantism, like Waysider points out, called the Fundamentalist movement, and there are lots of groups especially, it seems, in the USA. The idea has a fancy Latin name, sola scriptura, and was the rallying cry of the Protestants when they broke away from the Catholic Church with Martin Luther leading the cause. Although I usually refrain from using Wikipedia as a source, it’s not a bad start here...See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura For me, being raised a Catholic in the 1950s and 1960s, I was immersed in a religious tradition that mixed church dogma AND the Bible as their sources for truth, so not until I got into Young Life in high school (a Bible-waving, born-again-proclaiming, Good News for Modern Man N.T. version reading segment of the Jesus movement alive in the 1970s and still going on today) did the emphasis in my fledgling kindergarden style theological training shift to scripture as the only place for truth to be found (which, of course ignores the long history of the way of thinking that claims there is only ONE truth, but that’s another topic for another rainy day – it’s raining here in Winter Park, Florida right now and they say it might turn to snow! Yippee...). Anyway, for me, sitting through the indoctrination class, PFAL, as Waysider reminds us, was not only an experience of getting Wierwille’s theology (plagiarized as it is) hammered into my mind, but was also an indoctrination into the broader category of thinking which is called Fundamentalism which has as one of its major cornerstones the idea you are addressing: that the Bible is the only source for truth. Along with inerrancy, millennialism, and evangelizing, it feels (to put it mildly) that the Bible should be mankind’s only rule of faith and practice. Fundamentalism is the extremely conservative segment of Protestantism that essentially fights against modernism (i.e. evolution and other scientific issues), textual criticism and other approaches to understanding what the Bible is that do not buy into “the accuracy of The Word,” for instance, or that it was dictated by God to the writers. It is mission-oriented and from what I’ve seen, rejects the validity of any other religions as avenues for “reaching God.” This movement started in earnest in America during the 1920s when the clash between conservative Protestants and Darwinism hit the country. For a book on the history of American Fundamentalism, check out, Fundamentalism and American Culture, by George M. Mardsen (Oxford Univ. Press 2006). It’s a long read and I haven’t read all the chapters, but from what I’ve read, I think it is a good source. See what you think. He is a professor of history at the University of Notre Dame and is a Christian historian. I think he does a good job presenting the material about all the different ingredients that went into the recipe for American Fundamentalism. If you visit Amazon online, for instance, you can find LOTS of books and resources that cover Christian Fundamentalism. Or wander around the public library, which I what I did in 1987 when I left TWI and started to try and understand what the heck happened. A few I’ve read on the topic include these, but I’d like to find a few others that are good, too, so if anyone here knows any, please tell me: James Barr’s book, Fundamentalism, which I quoted in the “Nostalia..” article posted on the front page here. Published in Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1978. Sandeen, Ernest R. The Roots of Fundamentalism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1970. Clabaugh, Gary K. Thunder on the Right. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Company. 1974. Armstrong, Karen. The Battle for God, A History of Fundamentalism. The Ballantine Publishing Group. 2000.

For those of you reading this who may not be familiar with what Geisha is referring to by that “Charter,” here is the info (I find it inspiring and good) from: Charter for Compassion The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect. It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others—even our enemies—is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion. We therefore call upon all men and women ~ to restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate ~ to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures ~ to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity ~ to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings—even those regarded as enemies. We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community.

I'm confident that G@r^ C^rt!$$ would, WC is a long story & still teaching VPW-based stuff, and BJ is still writing for The Way Mag...

Fantastic observation! Translation work takes the problems with the false notion (IMO) of inerrancy to another level and complicates the issue infinitely. Not only from the Biblical languages themselves into English, but then from English into another language. For instance, anyone who translated TWI teachings, i.e. the PFAL class and Holy Spirit book from English to Spanish or from English to French knew of the multitude of tricky issues involved. A word in one language can have a “range of meaning” in another. Some people working on these projects were in deep denial about the problems or else were willing to admit knew they could not back up VPW’s theology or claim of an inerrant Bible in the process of translating. Did anyone here at GSC work on translation projects or know of anyone who did? I do, although I decline to give names here. They struggled in silence mostly and bore the brunt of VPW’s rantings about not maintaining the “accuracy” of “The Word” like they should, etc. Their task was impossible. Finally, they left, too.

As a newcomer to the Bible, as you say, I think you might get something out of reading, The Bible, A Biography,by Karen Armstrong. It’s a good intro to what the Bible is and where it came from. Here’s a quote from the inside flap of the paper cover: “She analyzes the climate in which oral history turned into written scripture, how this scripture was collected into one work, and how it became accepted as Christianity’s sacred text. She explores how scripture came to be read for the information it imparted and how, in the nineteenth century, challenges to the historical accuracy of the Bible caused as much concern as Darwin’s theory of evolution.” Visit: Karen Armstrong's books about history of religion

I was one of those, too.

Abilities and talents were NOT encouraged for any other reason but to serve Wierwille's goals, clothed in the verbiage that they were "moving The Word." Only there WAS NOT ANY WORD only VP's dogmas. I agree. We were told we must carry VP's "heart for the Word and the ministry" to the world because he was only one man and could not do it all himself. Basically, we were to be PFAL puppets, etc.

Here's another TWI offshoot site, which is new to me, but others might know of it: Faithful Stewards fellowship, Pres. Jim Melt*n

Because I viewed him as the man of God for this day and time (geezz...) and because of that, I mis-gave thanks to him rather than to God, I am ashamed to report that I said the following, which was quoted in the Way Magazine, Jan/Feb 1984: "...He showed me the Word living, and I owe my life to this ministry."

Geisha, In answer to your question, "So, what are we going to do? Legislate theology we don't like? It would just be replaced with something else." I have a few ideas, and I know that as high as these goals might be, I think we might be able to make a good stab at some of them – 1) Provide the other side of “the story,” for instance here at GSC in regards to TWI. 2) Educate ourselves about the history of the belief systems we hold and try to understand the nature of our beliefs. Ask good questions. 3) Raise awareness of the divisiveness and destructive tendencies of these groups: TWI, offshoots, and similar cults/religions. 4) Speak out and say that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate. 5) Do our best to give the next generation respectful and good information about other traditions, religions and cultures. 6) Do our small part to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity. 7) Think globally and act locally. As Ghandi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.” 8) Tell our own stories. If we don’t, someone else will. Stories carry valuable lessons others can relate to. Some of these ideas are my own; some are included in the recent Charter for Compassion: http://charterforcompassion.org/

Maybe this qualifies as a relic, maybe not: In 1976, either for the Way's anniversary on Oct. 3 or for VP's b/day Dec. 31, we of the 2nd Corps (back in for another year of indoctrination) pooled our pennies and bought VP a special gift to memorialize the snow job – oh I mean the moment when God told him He would teach him the Word like it hadn't been known since the first century -- I can't believe we did this but we bought the window, frame and glass and everything, off the building in Payne, Ohio - the famous window he looked out of and "...it was snowing so hard I couldn't see those gas pumps right there." - The Way Living in Love, Elena Whiteside, pg. 181. As far as I know it was put in the WOW Auditorium years later. Maybe it is still there... Good grief!

I'm having the same issue. How do I fix it?

Sirguess... Thanks for reminding us of certain developments...we do well to remember these points you made: simply develops...and development occurs in stages... faith develops in stages self-awareness develops in stages cognition develops in stages morals develop in stages consciousness develops in stages yada yada yada stages build sequentially on failures of previous stages...all stages eventually run their course (fail)...out of the ashes rise a higher order....such is the wisdom of folly all are forgiven...all is beautiful, good and true life is indeed a stage

http://www.jhm.org/ME2/Default.asp Geisha, IMO, adamant fundamentalists like John Hagee, for example [web site above], are dangerous because of the hate-filled speech he spews using the Bible as his authority and source for judgment on others during his T.V. services. Hundreds of people believe him; I’d venture to say thousands do. Emotional damage, split-up families, all manner of divisions and hurts can be caused by his teachings - that's what I think makes his mindset dangerous...dangerous to people’s well-being. On the very extreme end of his kind of thinking can be physical violence. I don't think this is news to any of us... What I use to define Fundamentalism can be found in my article, expressed in the quotes from James Barr and Karen Armstrong. Armstrong's in-depth book, The Battle for God - A History of Fundamentalism, which I list at the end of my article, offers a detailed account of the histories of fundamentalism spawned by the three major monotheistic religions. (she doesn't cover Buddhists or any other group in her book). Here's another example: Joel Osteen Cheers!

I think we're not connecting very well. I don't believe I have ever said that because the Bible is not perfect it cannot contain any truth. But what those truths are to me may not include the things you think are true. The truths I see are things like the golden rule, the fruit of the spirit, general principles of ethical behavior that are also found elsewhere. Nor do I believe I ever said a person can't believe in Christ if the Bible is not perfect. People do it all the time. I just chose not to. Perhaps the problem in our communication here is that there are too many topics tangled up that we may or may not feel differently about. No problem. I try to make every effort not to hold extreme views (what I consider extreme may not be what you think are extreme, though), so where I have done so in my previous posts, point it out clearly so I can address it. I will do my best. Here's a list of the many topics mashed together, in my opinion. I'm not able to address each one and doing that is really beyond my ability. My interest in these things is more like a hobby than anything else right now, mainly because I'm still working on writing my story and these things play into it: The Bible's history The cultures of the writers of the Bible Textual errors in the Bible Inerrancy of the Bible Bibliolatry - the worship of the Bible which to me means placing it as the final authority on everything Truth - which can be found in and outside the Bible Theology - the study of God Interpretations of the scriptures A belief in Christ that depends on inerrancy A belief in Christ that does not depend on inerrancy A belief in Christ that includes bibliolatry A belief in Christ that does not include bibliolatry At this point, I guess I'm at a loss as to how to contribute much of anything else to the discussion right now...and since I've been hogging a good deal of the posts today, I'll let others chime in...

I see where you are coming from - Christ is the "answer" for you. We are in different rooms on this...I left the Christianity room awhile ago. What prompted my leaving is a long story but it was prompted when I questioned the authority of the text when I came to see discrepancies in it. I think my story Affinity shows that. But giving up Christianity was a much more complex journey than getting upset over a few Bible contradictions. As I said, Bible study does not have to necessarily be tied to having faith in Christianity or in Judaism, if you’re studying only the Hebrew Bible. I think in this world, religion may not have been the sole cause of major conflicts but without an academic understanding of it (knowledge for understanding’s sake not knowledge for knowledge’s sake as you pointed out) we’ll have a hard time solving those conflicts. Regarding faith...I’ve said in other posts that faith and study of the Bible (or any other book) are separate issues to me. People believe all sorts of “spiritual” things, faith in God, faith in Christ being God’s Son or the second person of the trinity, or some other sort of being - without their belief being tied to a verse in any book, or an alternate reading of a verse, or on a Syriac reading instead of a Greek one. I do want to say I like the description of authorship in ancient times that you copied above: Not surprisingly, ancient views about 'authorship' are not quite the same as modern views which assume 'individual' authors for almost all documents that aren't collections of essays by some group of scholars. However in ancient collectivistic cultures this was not the norm. Many, if not most ancient documents were anthological in character--- a compilation of traditions from various different persons and ages through time. That’s a good example of the book being a product of a different way of life (culture) and a different world view. Inerrancy and resulting bibliolatry has no interest in considerations of this sort, because to acknowledge such things would undercut the basis of their authority...that the Bible is God’s perfect Word (albeit in the originals) and our only rule of faith and practice. That to me is a dangerous world view. I held it for 17 years in TWI. I held a similar view as a Catholic the 18 years before TWI – that the Catholic Church was the one true faith and everyone else was going to hell. That’s just as fundamentalist as TWI in that one regard. I think we cannot underestimate the important fact that the Bible is a culturally-tied book and the implications of that fact are deep and wide. Faith is a personal matter, some say, and I agree. When it becomes a problem is when we think ours is the right or true one and everyone else’s is of the devil, or at least misguided. Mmmm...there must be a better way...

Very insightful posts by Ben Witherington. I like the way he examines Bart Ehrman's work, especially, because I like a lot of what he writes. But since I am not a scholar, I have to weigh what lots of these people write with my own common sense and try to think of what assumptions they begin with to build their arguments. After reading Ben’s posts, I notice there is still a lot of theology behind his views. It is probably unavoidable. For instance, I think he still begins from the assumption that there is a “personal” God who mysteriously guides situations certain ways. For example, you see this below: Witherington: “The bigger issue that Bart wants to raise is of course how one could think the Bible as we have it is the inspired Word of God when, 1) this concept is limited to the original autographs of the Bible, and 2) we don’t have them anymore, and anyway 3) the canon of Scripture was compiled by fallible human beings, not by God. Penworks: The following statements show Ben’s theology kicking in: Witherington: “For him [bart], the deeper theological problem here is why God would allow us to lose the original manuscripts if it was so important to have the inspired Word of God. This is a perfectly appropriate question, and it deserves a fair answer.” Penworks: I haven’t read any theological question from Bart. He is a student of historical criticism of the texts, not theology which is the study of God, what or who God is and in so doing, seems to interpret the Bible according to a particular view of what or who God is and what He does. Often, I think theologians forget they are using metaphors to refer to the unknowable (God) and turn that creative, unknowable force into an entity. But that idea stems from the one Israel had in the O.T. about their monotheistic god. For more on this, I suggest the book, A History of God by Karen Armstrong. Witherington: “If we wanted to give a theological answer, [some of us are not looking for one] we could immediately remind the reader of the problem with golden calves… namely in the hands of fallen human beings they tend to get worshipped. It is entirely believable to me that God allowed things to go as they did in regard to the original manuscripts of the Bible to prevent mistaking the means for the end, and even worshipping the means, by which I mean the original autographs of the Bible. In other words, bibliolatry, the worship of a perfect book, was and is a real possibility for fallen human beings.” Penworks: I agree that bibliolatry is a huge problem. But Theology is man’s way of slapping an explanation on an event that somehow drags in an invisible God and makes claims about what that God does or does not do, think, or say. My guesses about those matters would be as good as the next guy’s. Penworks: I don’t agree bibliolatry exists because we are theologically “fallen” because that is a Christian theology type of answer. Who says were “fallen” to begin with? Christians! I think it’s because people are afraid to think for themselves, in general, and so we look to a book to tell us what to do. What better book than one that some say is “inspired by God.” But remember, to believe that, a person must assume at least two major things: 1) there is only one God; hence monotheism is the only way to describe the unknowable 2) there is the sort of God that intervenes with human affairs. If one holds those two ideas as true, then all sorts of “us vs. them” scenarios play out, i.e. which side of a war is God supporting? The list of problems is endless. Although the problem of bibliolatry is a point well made by Witherington, I think he misses the fact that his own theology is supplying explanations that may be satisfactory to him but leave many of us unsatisfied because we don’t hold the same assumptions about his God that he does. The Bible, no matter how we got it, no matter how we feel about its authority or lack thereof, still remains a culturally-bound book, and there's no end of ignorance about that fact and its implications - I’ll be the first one to admit I’m still getting educated about that! What I do know from my life experience in TWI and thereafter, and from the evidence of many other people’s stories, is that bibliolatry perpetuated by Christian fundamentalism is a serious issue of enormous importance. Fundamentalist Bible cults will continue to sprout up because the “general public” seems okay with the basis for these groups – a belief that a particular book has all the answers they need in this life. Bibliolatry of necessity involves a denial of anyone else’s differing interpretations of what the book says and means...interpretations offered by none other than...theologians.

Along these lines of thinking about Genesis, a very helpful book is Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman, which I first read in about 1989 and it only enriched my understanding about who wrote the Bible (a question I had not allowed myself to ask aloud while in TWI). To me, that's the first question I ask now when I pick up any book. Here's a portion from it: "The hypothesis that the Five Books of Moses were the result of such a combining of several older sources by different authors was exceptionally important because it prepared the way to deal with a new item of evidence that was developed by three investigators in the following century [after 1688 A.D.]: the doublet. A doublet is a case of the same story being told twice. Even in translation it is easy to observe that biblical stories often appear with variations of detail in two different places in the Bible. There are two different stories of the creation of the world. There are two stories of the covenant between God and the patriarch Abraham, two stories of the naming of Abraham's son Isaac...” (pg 22).

Fantastic. Love the point made so clearly!

Due to the interest in this sort of topic in the Nostalgia thread, here's a link to a site with an article quoting the same book I've read by Eric Hoffer called The True Believer - Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. The True Believer - quotes used in article on Fort Hood tragedy

Due to the interest in this thread, I'll start a topic called True Believers?