penworks

W@!t*r C^mm!n$ and B#rn!t@ J*$$ along with G@r^ C^rt!$$ would proably back you up on that observation

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...

I think it was in PFAL that VPW talked about Psalm 119 being an acrostic psalm. That is, in this particular case, that each section starts with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet which is then featured in that section. This is something that is completely lost when it is translated into any other language. That makes no sense to me when trying to ascribe a perfect or inerrant nature to it. Instead, it sounds to me like this was a convention of the language that was used at that particular point in history. It's difficult for me to accept that God would assign a level of perfection to a particular passage when the essence of such perfection would be lost to all but a handful of scholars.

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, I tend to agree with you but not completely. For me, the interesting part of reading the bible is trying to figure out what the underlying message is, or was intended to be. Maybe sometimes there isn't one, and maybe sometimes the message is of little use to modern man, but I find it all interesting just the same.

Unlike what some may believe, I think many stories in the bible can be interpreted in various ways. And if nothing else, the dark poetry in Lamentations, the love songs of Solomon, the prayers in Psalms and the (sometimes hidden) lessons in Proverbs are just plain fun to read.

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

Not sure what time period you're talking about Bolshevik, but back in the early 1970's,

there were many "normal" folks who signed up for and took the class. Looking for knowledge;

interested in learning; exploring "new avenues"; etc. I (and 3 of my closest friends) took pfal

to see what it had to offer. None of us were "mentally handicapped" or "screwed up", to my recollection.

We were younger then, and the world offered a plethora of possibilities. pfal was one of them.

I was one of those, too.

Any talents or abilities exhibited could have been encouraged and strengthened instead of saying, "We'll make you into a leader."

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.

The corps program was not a leadership program.........it was a followship program.

Wierwille designed the way corps to follow orders, to promote pfal, to run classes PERIOD. Even after corps graduation, wierwille brought these corps grads -- limb/region leaders -- BACK TO HQ FOR MORE TRAINING INDOCTRINATION. This move accomplished two things: 1) it gutted them from any growing allegiance/following in their respective states and 2) wierwille wanted them to know that "he was still in charge"....ie they were to follow him or else!

Yet, I've long contested that many corps grads were bolting as early as 1978/79. The wierwille illusion was wearing thin, the mog-hype was unraveling, the corps program had become a doulos-slave camp. To stop the hemorraging of corps grads.....bullying and name-calling mounted on corps nights. Mandatory meetings and mandatory corps week attendance might have slowed the hemorraging....but it only, especially in hindsight, highlighted the obvious: wierwille was NOT who we thought he was.

Yes, many corps grads want martindale to be the fall guy for twi, but in truth.....it was wierwille. He baked the loaf with leaven......the absent Christ teachings, the "law of believing," the man of God of the universe allegiance, the elitist attitude, the household of zion, the truth like it hasn't been known since the first century, the new dynamic church cult, etc. etc.

When corps/clergy stopped following wierwille they were history....striken from twi listings, twi history, twi bookstores. Huh? Wasn't this about being Christ-like? Wasn't this about following scriptures? NOPE. This was about wierwille. This was about wierwille's legacy. This was about wierwille's cult.

The corps program WAS the leaven in the way ministry.....it accelerated the elistist and antagonistic fermentation in the whole loaf. It puffed up twi AGAINST the knowledge of God.

Wierwille's corps, for the most part, BECAME the image of wierwille.

<_<

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

"If it wasn't for The Way, I'd be dead by now."

Have you ever heard someone say this? Oh, there are lots of variations. "I'd be in prison." or "I'd be in a mental hospital". Or maybe they've said "If it wasn't for PFAL" or " If it wasn't for Dr." or "If it wasn't for 'the word'". or whatever. I'll bet we've all heard someone say something like this. Hell, I probably even said it myself at some time or other. But where did this thinking come from? What's the earliest time you can remember someone saying this? It might be interesting to find out how this started.

When I was a kid, my aunt lived in the southern California desert. I don't know what it's like now but back then, they had terrible sand storms. You had to seal up every little crack and crevice or the sand would find its way in. I mean, you could open up your underwear drawer and find sand in your shorts! I think some of this cult thinking stuff was like that desert sand, finding its way into every nook and cranny.

So, when you hear someone say, "I'd be dead by now if not for The Way", it's a pretty sure bet they still have some sand in their shorts.

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!

This problem just popped up for me today. For some reason, when I open a reply box, the "toolbars" appear in the middle of the box, instead of above it. I haven't found an easy way to "drag" the toolbar to thetop. What happened?

George

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

Ithat contributes to strife. . . . and two, evidence and reason concerning issues of faith were the product of a lazy and backward mind.

Who exactly are these dangerous people? Those with this dangerous mindset? Can we have some clarification?

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!

Whoa. . . wait a second. I think you are still making that disconnect here. . . . you seem really hung up on the book. Where does that all or nothing bible craze come from? That perspective? We left the cult, you and I. . . . . .we don't need that jumping off point.

If I can't prove to you it is perfect, then it can't be true?

Do you know where most of these shocking revelations of additions and variants can be found? In the footnotes of any good study bible. They are not secrets.

The book is what holds the explanation. We have to deal with the actual explanation as well as the book. . . as you point out, the book wasn't always around. . . . the explanation has been around awhile. Wouldn't it follow that if the explanation were true. . . . it would be perfect? By definition if something is true. . . it corresponds to a reality and is right. No?

Makes sense to me. . . . but, the bible is not the Qu'ran. Which claims to be the exact representation of God. . . . and should not be translated but read in Arabic.

The Christian scriptures tell about a man who claimed to declare God in His person. He also proclaimed the authority of scripture by, "It is written".

Written by men. . . . inspired by God. One word as good as another, written by men in their own style, from their perspective, giving an explanation. Christians believe in the man and the explanation which comes to us NOW. . . . by way of the book. We believe the explanation, which answers the questions. . . . we believe what is written IN the book.

TWI did us a great disservice. We worshiped that book as God. But, not everyone who believes in the inerrancy of scripture(the explanation) is worshiping the book.

This is one of the reasons why I so hate TWI. . . . we were so conditioned to the extreme it is nearly impossible to get away from it. The aberrant fringe extreme. It still guides what we are drawn to and how we understand things. . . .

Funny thing here. . . you really can't get away from declaring a truth. . . you tell someone they are wrong. . . you must have some authority on what is right. You tell someone they can't know what is true. . . you are declaring that to be true.

Same shoe. . . . different foot.

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).

Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/sumerians_look_on_in_confusion_as

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

Thanks PENWORKS.

More and more I see how wrong I was about TWI... and what it really truely was!

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

For more about this TWI offshoot read:

On the topic of nostalgia for the old TWI research, etc., someone recently asked me what were the hallmarks of an "offshoot" leader. I found this quote in a book called The True Believer - Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, by Eric Hoffer published in 1951 and think it is apt for such a discussion. I've put a couple of my own comments in [ ]:

Pg. 150 : “...he cannot help being awed by the tremendous achievements of faith and spontaneity in the early days of the movement [nostalgia for the good old TWI days?] when a mighty instrument of power was conjured out of the void. The memory of it is still extremely vivid. He takes, therefore, great care to preserve in the new institutions an impressive façade of faith, and maintains an incessant flow of fervent propaganda, though he relies mainly on the persuasiveness of force [psychological not physical necessarily]. His orders are worded in pious vocabulary, and the old formulas and slogans are continually on his lips. The symbols of faith are carried high and given reverence [the Bible, the classes, etc.]. The men of words and the fanatics of the early period are canonized. Though the steel fingers of coercion make themselves felt everywhere and great emphasis is placed on mechanical drill [mindless repetition of verses, theological ideas], the pious phrases and fervent propaganda give to coercion a semblance of persuasion, and to habit a semblance of spontaneity.”

Someone recently asked what were the hallmarks of an "offshoot" leader. I found this quote in a book called The True Believer - Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, by Eric Hoffer published in 1951 (before much was published about cults) and think it is apt for such a discussion. I've put a couple of my own comments in [ ]:

Pg. 150 : “...he cannot help being awed by the tremendous achievements of faith and spontaneity in the early days of the movement [nostalgia for the good old TWI days?] when a mighty instrument of power was conjured out of the void. The memory of it is still extremely vivid. He takes, therefore, great care to preserve in the new institutions an impressive façade of faith, and maintains an incessant flow of fervent propaganda, though he relies mainly on the persuasiveness of force [psychological not physical necessarily]. His orders are worded in pious vocabulary, and the old formulas and slogans are continually on his lips. The symbols of faith are carried high and given reverence [the Bible, the classes, etc.]. The men of words and the fanatics of the early period are canonized. Though the steel fingers of coercion make themselves felt everywhere and great emphasis is placed on mechanical drill [mindless repetition of verses, theological ideas], the pious phrases and fervent propaganda give to coercion a semblance of persuasion, and to habit a semblance of spontaneity.”

Hi Taxicab,

Yeah, there's so much to choose from in the Bible when one wants to slant theology in their own special direction. The Red Thread is a great example.

I do want to add that my comments about the Bible are not meant to be disrespectful of it. There's no doubt it has truths in it that are helpful and shed light on the human condition. The problem is as I see it, people use it to make money off of other people's ignorance of it, use it to control people, and misrepresent what's in the text in ways that are disrespectful and recklessly misrepresentative (is that a word?) of the writers of each document, their times, their intentions, their culture, etc.

Cheers and see you 'round the cafe!

To equate a book of literature with a book of mathmatical formulas is not an axiom it's blind stupidity.

The assumption that what the bible says about itself is in any way reliable with out being tested is crazy, ...

Seth

Glad you liked the article. The Bible is a book of literature, as you pointed out, but the interesting aspect of it to me is that it is an anthology - a group of separate writings. They don't constitute a book in the sense we usually approach a book. The Bible is like about 60 books bound together. No statement can be made in it that speaks about it as a whole since it was not written as a whole. There's no ONE writer. There are many. So, IMO, VPW's claim that the Bible can even say anything about itself is erroneous.

I should have stood up in the PFAL class and said, "Wait, show me the verse that says the Bible is God's Word."

I think the typical answer was John 17:17, "Thy word is truth." BUT wait! VPW took that verse out of context, which was something he accused others of incorrectly doing.

That verse is part of a prayer that the gospel writer recorded as Jesus was praying to his Father. It is not referring to the Bible, for heaven's sake. THERE WAS NO BIBLE YET.

Probably his rapidly increasing level of debauchery.

You are not the first person I've heard who has made that deduction!