penworks

... The Good Reverend forgets the following question. How does one define 'substantial errors', as opposed to 'unsubstantial errors', ... hhmmmm?

IMO, the significance of that statement is this: There is always someone in charge making that determination - which errors are substantial and which ones are not, which word to use in translating a Greek word into English and which other ones in the "range of meaning" to ignore. IMO, this is a subjective process. In TWI, the original person in charge of making that determination was VPW. Then Walt*r Cumm*ns in Research got involved with textual studies to help substantiate the inerrancy stance of TWI. He went to Germany in one attempt.

The problem for me became: The "accuracy" of "The Word" was what someone "in charge" ended up deciding. To me, it is still someone's interpretation and interpretations can be influenced by a number things going on with the interpreter.

When I was "witnessed to" in 1971, I was told that TWI was always open to learning more about the Bible. They even said the ministry could and would change when it learned more.

This appealed to me.

These statements are printed on a "For Those Who Want to Know" handout sheet:

"This is what research is all about - working, studying the whole Bible to see how it all fits together. Part of research is not to find something new in the Word, but to establish in your own heart the inherent and inerrant accuracy of the truths of God's Word for yourself."

Next paragraph:

"As a research and teaching ministry, we are always open to learn more about the Bible. The ministry has the freedom to change and grow when something new is discovered in the Bible. No dogmas are imposed on an individual. The research is made available to those who wish to utilize it."

Two of my (notice MY) questions about the above statements include:

1. How open was/is TWI? - My experience was that you could not usually question things like inerrancy or teachings already in print or taped or on video.

2. Who decides what doctrines to change and why? - I saw only VPW, and a few select individuals do this as they worked as a group, but in the end, while VPW was alive, he had the final answer. Sometimes that meant he appealed to his "scope of The Word" after 40 some years of study, not to any text in existence.

After he died, as far as the Way Corps teachings and Magazine articles go, the "accuracy of the Word" became a team effort of the research team (some with degrees, some without), with Walt*r Cumm*ns making the final calls, even when some input from others seemed workable.

The research system was set up like this because W.C. was the one VPW put in charge of research. During the course of this process to determine the "Literal translations according to usage" I began to wonder where this put TWI as far as claiming it could get back to the "accuracy" of The Word. Which would show inerrancy.

Those are just a few thoughts to add to the topic.

One last item: In the PFAL book, page 5, we see VPW's habit of using the terms "the Bible" "scripture," and "The Word" or "God's Word" interchangeably.

To me, that is a MAJOR issue.

In my view, this got very confusing. One reason is that there are many different Bible versions, some with different canons. Which one has the God-breathed canon? I think this subject has been hashed out here by several of us.

Peace

One would think that what you laid out in the post above would be the default position and any inerrancy would have to be proved. If the bible was inerrant, it stands to reason that that would be demonstrable.

Thank you, Oakspear, for saying that the "facts on the ground" about the texts could be "the default position."

That is EXACTLY the one I've taken since I haven't seen anyone demonstrate inerrancy of the whole Bible.

Because I take that position, the burden would rest on the fundamentalists to show the assumption of inerrancy to be a worthwhile one.

To do it, they would have to choose a particular version to start with, I think, and probably be able to read Greek, Hebrew, Latin, etc. That seems a tall order from "God the author" in order to get to know anything he said "in the originals."

Our best attempts have been in attempting to "reconstruct" the originals.

Which leads to the next question, "Since we don't have the originals, how would we know our so-called reconstructed original is actually anything close to the original? There's no original to which we could compare our reconstruction.

So after all this reconstructive surgery (like on a human face) could we honestly say it's exactly like the original?

Some people seem confident in what they have that they still say, "Thus saith the Lord." My problem is I'm not that confident. That's just me. That's what put the brakes on my joining an offshoot, as much as they said they were correcting VPW's error - what about the errors in the text to start with, besides the ones VP added?

TWI took the KJV with add-ons to try and reconstruct the original. I was part of the research team who tried to do that with "literal transaltions according to usage." It all got pretty gymnastics-like after awhile...trying to scramble and explain contradictions...

Who really cares about this anyway?

Well, I used to when I depended for guidance in life on what I thought was God's Word and using it for my only rule of faith and practice. To let go of that idea requires some adjustment...to say the least. But I'm still alive and kickin'.

Ah well, any further comments on this topic? I'd like to read what further implications others see regarding this "default position" - the downsides and the upsides.

Peace,

Charlene

/me snickers at the 'Caution' of it being from a Buddhist perspective.

...indeed...that was my poor attempt at being a bit snide, and obviously not very compassionate - a good example of NOT living up to the high ideals in the message of the speaker... :(

Are you talking about John S0m@rv!1le, of Total Fitness Institute infamy?

Yes

If God's word is so complicated he needs these workmen and others to share the ego of these workmen, God probably didn't do a good job in speaking His words clearly the first time. What makes us think we are better communicators?!

Hi Greasespotters and visitors:

In my ongoing attempt to find common ground among religions and in particular lately between TWI supporters, offshoot followers, ex-cultists, never-in-your-life cultists, Christians, Agnostics, Atheists, etc. etc. I'd like to offer this video clip on T.E.D.

My questions are:

Is it really possible to do this?

Are we evolved enough as humans?

How do we de-escalate the rhetoric in civil discourse to do this?

Caution: This is a Buddhist perspective on what it means to be compassionate, although he points out how Christ encouraged this idea and way of life, too.

My intention is that this topic can be disussed here - I don't think it falls under the Doctrinal forum. If I am wrong, it should be moved there.

Robert Thurman on Expanding Your Circle of Compassion

Thanks,

Charlene

My article has lit up some otherwise dull fuses out there. (Note: I've received some personal emails that indicate this but I will not post them here.) If I have offended anyone in regards to their hero, that was not my intention.

My intention was to share my opinons/experiences in the hope that they would be helpful to others or useful in their understanding of TWI and what was taught by that group.

Naturally, what was taught by that group originated with VPW. My writing is not a personal attack on him. My writing is an exploration of the THINKING that he promulgated. He used that word a lot so I will use it in an attempt to communicate with TWI followers or spin-off group members.

The THINKING behind the TWI research approach involves assumptions.

I personally think that inerrancy is not a reasonable assumption with which to start research.

Why?

It denies the "facts on the ground" about the texts of the Bible that most people know, i.e. that they were written by various different writers in different countries during different periods of history and could not possibly be "without contradiction" by the sheer fact that these writers were unknown to each other. Not to mention the fact that we have no originals. At best we have translations of versions that are copies of copies, etc. etc.

I fully realize these "facts on the ground" fly in the face of another assumption, which is God is the author of all these books. To those who choose to accept that proposition, it doesn't matter who wrote them or how many writers there were. The books constitute a pile of writing that constitutes The Word.

Who cares about the history of the text?

TWI cared about it for awhile. Until someone in 1986 named Ch(s Ge*r came along and read the Passing of the Patriarch and all of a sudden, the research group at TWI, which consisted of TWI research team members (myself included) and members "from the field" were stopped from continuing on the project by the head of research, (Wal*&r Cu*mins who was I suspect (watch out, this is my OPINION) under pressure from Ge*r) canned the small group of people interested in that topic. It became too problematic, I guess. YEAH. Why? It might undermine one of the cornerstone assumptions of TWI, the one they were fighting so hard to maintain: that the Bible "fits like a hand in a glove."

I have an over-active imagination fueled by an over-active curiosity driven by years of knowledge-of-things-in-the-world deprivation that leads me to over-analyzing events of the past, present, and possible future scenarios.

Water boy, you are not alone...

If I remember correctly, the original point of bringing up the pre-Christian resurrection stories was as a counter to Wierwille's claim that Jesus' resurrection was unique among all the religions of the world. It wasn't. The existence of slain & risen gods born of virgins written about since antiquity doesn't in and of itself make the gospels false, but neither do the gospel stories make these others invalid.

I guess there are at least two ways of looking at this:

1. The Devil knew what God was going to do and set up other deaths & resurrections and virgin births to dilute the affect of Jesus.

2. Jesus' biographers added details from pagan mythology to his life and background to make him seem more godlike to the non-Jewish world.

3. Just a coincidence!

If you believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, I would imagine that you have to come up with scenarios like #1 in order to make it all "fit". If you do not believe that the bible is a divinely inspired book, then #2 would make more sense.

Brilliant analysis.

I think that this is an extension of the concept of "expanded literal translation according to usage."

<_<

George

On the "Research" team, I used to help write those "literal translations according to usage." Did we think about the fact that a process like that actually contradicted VP's idea that the Word "meant what it said and said what it meant, the order of the words must be perfect...etc.?

We were making ANOTHER TRANSLATION to throw on the pile of a hundred ones already out there.

Okay, I'll pipe down now. Sister Margaret Mary always said I talked too much.

Yes, I still have dreams. Lately, I attribute that to the fact I am writing about my TWI days for a book.

The one the other night: VP wanted 3x5 cards. Anothr girl and I went searching for them desperately and didn't find them...maybe we were looking for those darn missing "originals"...they were printed on 3x5 cards, right? Oh yeah, nobody knows for sure cuz THEY WERE LOST OR DESTROYED!!!

Okay, no more coffee for me...

Peace,

Charlene

If you're doing good, then I, for one, salute you.

But since you're "not asking for anyone's blessing or permission, nor will be persuaded or dissuaded from an endeavor that [you] think is right..." it seems you're merely concerned about perception, or PR, as another poster put it.

That being said, if you're building your "ministry" on PFAL foundations, in my book, you're an offshoot/splinter.

Agree. I retract my comment that you are "asking an honest question" until you show otherwise. It now seems a loaded question, which IMO is not USUALLY honest...

Commentator's notation: I seem to have fallen into the habit of qualifying everything I say recently. That's what a few knee-jerk responses to anything you say can push a person into doing. Oh well, for what my opinions are worth, good luck with your doing-good endeavor, Patriot.

Upside: A box in which all answers were found.

Downside: A box in which all answers were found.

Yes, I heard those recordings. And yes, that was some bad ..... It happened. So, what's your point?

Why are you here?

Yup, the "accuracy & integrity of the Word" was never any more or less than what Wierwille said it was.

I have long thought that PFAL, for all it's sloppy scholarship and kindergarten research, was a master work at getting us to buy into Wierwille's theology.

Wierwille starts off by hammering on the theme of The Word is true, is faithful, is without error etc. Then he shows you that in modern translations there are errors, but then miraculously, through the power of research, solves the problem and voila! no errors. He spends a lot of time contrasting what mainstream churches teach with what he reads for us in black and white, all the while deriding the priests, popes and theologians for teaching otherwise, undermining our trust in anyone other than him! We hardly notice when he stops reading exactly what is written and starts slipping in his own interpretations, and most of us never realize that he's making up definitions and referring to texts and documents that exist only in his mind.

That was my experience with TWI research! Well put.

Here's one example:

Now, turn to your PFAL books to verse - oops I mean page, 127, "Now I said that no translation, let along a version, may properly be called the Word of God."

WHOA. Then what CAN be called the Word of God?

Have you ever wondered what good is *the movement of God`s word*? I mean seriously, isn`t it the folks doin that who seem to feel the most entitled to ensnare, enslave, steal from, and violate using the name of God as their power source and the scriptures to justify their behavior?

Doesn`t it seem like people keep trying to do the same thing most of the time with the best of intentions, whether it be twi of stfi over and over using the same formula and innocent people keep getting hurt?

Maybe we have the formula wrong, or maybe the focus on US *moving the word* is misplaced.

Take one look at this site about John Hagee's ministry and notice how much like TWI it is. They are "moving God's Word" etc. Scary to me how imperative he makes it sound and how twisted The Word of God sounds in this guy's teachings...

BTW - I have a reliable source (I won't reveal who that is) who told me a person very involved with the Bible Lands Tours for this Hagee outfit is a former TWI follower who studied and taught Old Testament history, etc. in TWI.

Can anyone here provide a second source for this info?

Part of losing waybrain is getting to the point that you can actually hear disagreeable things without the "truth alarm" ringing in your head.

I remember when I first started posting on GSC back in 2002 before I left TWI, there was a poster who was a minister of a church. He challenged thoughts ex-wayfers were having. He asked something to this effect: Could you think it was OK for your best friend or family to be Jewish, gay, Pagan, or anything non-Christian without having the "need" to correct them on their beliefs.

At the time I read it, I was thought "No effin way! If someone doesn't want to be Christian, they are screwed spiritually." I don't necessary believe that way anymore. I think everyone should believe how they want to without prejudice as long as they aren't threatening to those around them. There are plenty of Christian types who fit in to the dangerous category.

If we look at history, wars have been based on the need to kill those who lack of acceptance of others' beliefs. Look how many years Israel and the Middle East have been at it. And now we fear for our own soil because the extremist islamics want to see us dead because we are infidels to them whether we are Christian or not. I realize this puts us in the position that we HAVE NO OTHER choice but to kick their arses to protect ourselves.

America was founded on freedom of religion, yet we are so quick to judge if someone isn't of the "norm". If we learned to walk around with less judgment on people, we might learn something.

Tolerance is a scarey word for some people. It raises extreme emotions in quite a few actually. I have to say I have a lot less stress in my life since I've stopped the waybrain train of insanity.

:eusa_clap:

Fascinating thread. Have to say I've come across a lot of these similarities regarding creation myths across cultures, too...

Regarding resurrection stories, have any of you read The Passover Plot by Hugh J. Schoenfield, published in 1965? It was banned in the U.S. for some time. It's a fun and original (I think) way of interpreting the very same verses of the gospel that are used to prove the opposite explanation of the death and resurrection events of Jesus recorded in the gospels.

The paper book jacket states, "...Jesus...sincerely believed himself to be the Messiah of Israel foretold by the prophets, and deliberately plotted his actions - which were to culminate in the events of the Passion Week with his crucifixtion and subsequent resurrection - to bear out the Messianic prophecies.

I won't spoil the ending but...oh heck why not...

Continued from the dust cover:

"...Jesus contrived to be arrested the night before Passover, fully aware that he would be nailed to the cross the following day, but taken down before the onset of the Sabbath in accordance with Jewish law.

Here's where it gets fun:

He would survive the agony of but three hours on the cross. To ensure his safe removal, he arranged to be given, while on the cross, not the traditional vinegar but a drug that would render him unconscious and make him appear dead....he would be nursed back to health and then "resurrected." In the end, he escapes out of the country to continue his revolution...

The Messianic Legacy book is another one along these lines. Fun reading on a rainy night.

Peace,

Penworks

It's always interesting to watch the double standard of people who want us silenced.

"I don't feel bad that twi ruined lives. I was treated nicely in twi.

If vpw went around and drugged and raped women, I don't see why I should have

any emotional response to that at all. After all, I got what I wanted,

why should I care if anyone else's life was ruined?"

So, to them, it's perfectly FINE to ruin lives.

But TALK ABOUT someone ruining lives, oh, and you've committed The Cardinal Sin.

Do ANYTHING but TALK ABOUT someone ruining lives, that's a lot worse than

actually RUINING THE LIVES.

Or is it just that vpw gets a special pass and can ruin lives and do whatever

he wants, but even bringing it up prompts a hypocritical double-standard that

finally triggers outrage?

BTW, if you hear that your sisters in Christ, for whom Christ died,

were assaulted, raped, drugged, molested, or otherwise victimized,

and their assailant used the cloak of religion (like twi) to justify himself,

and your response is APATHY,

Then SHAME ON YOU.

SHAME ON YOU, and shame on the family that failed to teach you proper values as

you grew up.

Jesus was outraged at the exploitation of MONEY in the name of God.

What do you think his response will be when he judges these rapists/molesters/evil-doers?

Thank you for obviating this. Apathy about the seriousness of these matters is beyond belief.

If any of us has knowledge that can help someone else who is in pain but we withhold it, then shame on us.

If any of us has knowledge that sheds light on past events to reveal their nature or their lessons, than I think most would agree that it is our moral obligation to speak up.

Here is one:

I was involved in TWI, and during my time, was Corps and held some different levels of leadership positions. Obviously, I've declared independence, but am still & want to remain zealous for God. Life is really good for us.

Recently, its been on my heart to focus some attention in a specific category of life, and how to apply some Biblical principles in it. Obviously, it starts for my own benefit, but I would really enjoy helping others (whether they were with twi or not) in this category. Am I looking for self-glory or promotion....seriously, NO! Yet, I do not know of anyone else's ministry or church that focuses solely on this category (so it would be kind of a specialty ministry - not to replace other's community church or fellowship, but to provide resources and focus on one important category of life).

I'm not asking for anyone's blessing or permission, nor will be persuaded or dissuaded from an endeavor that I think is right...and may be what God my Father wants me to do.

Question - since I once had involvement with TWI - if I did this, would I then be a 'splinter group'? In such a case, is there any way one could start something, in godly sincerity, that wouldn't be derided as such?

Since you asked an honest question, I'll throw in my two cents along with the others here.

Since you are asking how to avoid being "derided" as an offshoot of TWI just because you at one time were affiliated with it, the advice already given to not charge money and lose the "way-speak" vocabulary is great advice.

I would also add the following:

First, I would seriously ask myself some tough questions about the "biblical principles" you were taught (You didn't say from where, so I don't really know). Ask yourself what they really mean, what you understand about them, how you think they are to be interpreted, how do you apply them, how do you know you're applying them appropriately, and why you think they are good to begin with.

Next, I absolutely caution you about being "zealous for God" and encourage you, again, to question what that means and the effects it produces. Keep in mind some people's concept of God and what He or She does is not the same as yours. Too much zealousness leads to problems I think we're all very familiar with.

Next, If you're basing your ideas at all on TWI's style of research, (which you may not be) just remember TWI research led to teachings founded on the idea that there are originals of the Bible to "get back to," - they do not exist anywhere in the world except in people's minds. Therefore we can't make claims about them, since we've never seen them nor has anyone else.

Lastly, my experience after TWI when approached to join up with other ex-TWI people and start a group was to reject the idea. I discovered the basis for TWI research was the same as most other Christian groups within the framework of Fundamentalism. If I were you, I'd try and find a way outside this framework to "help people."

If you are interested, there are several topics being discussed here at the moment on this topic of offshoots. I suggest you give yourself the chance to read them. One is a discussion on my article currently on the front page, Nostalgia for TWI Research... . Since you are trying to avoid being in that camp, perhaps getting as much info about it as you can would help.

Best wishes for doing good in the world. IMO, we all need to ask ourselves, "what is the good we can do?"

Peace,

Charlene

From these stories it is amazing to me that anyone at all ever works there.

It sounds like anyone would be better off being a convenience store clerk, a pizza tosser, slinging beers at the local pub or doing anything at all rather than putting up with all that nonsense.

In my case, the irony of ironies, was that our limb leader recommended my husband and I apply for jobs at HQ to get a "spiritual boost." He thought we needed that. I knew I needed some sort of change, and in those days, HQ was thought to be the "spiritual center" of the org. That was 1984.

1984, mmm...isn't there a frightening novel by that title?

For more on that "spiritual boost" I got working at HQ, you can read my memoir here on the front page, An Affinity for Windows.

Enjoy!

Charlene

I think that one of the reasons people "rehash the negatives" is because when they were in TWI they were either afraid or conditioned to not to speak their minds about their negative experiences. Many of these experiences are vile and gutwrenching to read about. It is here that they feel safe to say that the emperor had no clothes, if you recall that cute story from childhood.

I was just thinking of that Emperor story today! Especially in regards to the fact there are no "originals" of the Bible texts to "refer back to." I for one was too intimidated to point that out!

Cheers,

Charlene

They'll have a hard time getting rid of it. The guys that run the site are all about free speech and freedom of information.

http://www.archive.org/about/about.php

Good

Sometimes I think there are a few of you here who must have worked as writers for Saturday Night Live or Monty Python.

If we couldn't laugh at some of the past...

Must be why I like M*A*S*H reruns. I've have war vets tell me that's what it takes to survive in that insane environment...a little silly harmless spoofing...

So, thanks.

TWI is too internet stupid to know it's there. Be interesting to see if they try and get their lawyers to take it down. I believe all the relevant documents are at GSC but I have enjoyed seeing the original...lol

Uh, excuse me, but TWI will know about it NOW. You realize they have at least one designated reader of this site, right?

That's one of the nicest things anyone's said!!! Kinda like "I didn't know Paul McCartney was in the Beatles!"

Yeah, some people miss going to the Home page of this site and just log into the Forums all the time. They miss stuff like the list of all the Waydale stuff that's there... :unsure:

Charlene, you are right. Since we don't have any forensic evidence of the writer's/author's cyligaphy(?) or hand writing(notice how Paul loops certaing semetic letters or Issaiah has a certain visual slant) to compare nor their own non-scriptural comment, much less anything from Josephus or early 2nd Cent. Church Fathers to collaborate such matters. Even George Lamsa and Rocco Errico implied that the original manuscript penned by the Biblical writers were often treated as toilet paper or to start fires as kindling shows that the physical papyrus was not worshiped(biblioidolatry)as fundamentalists tend to do.

It is unfortunate all this happened. We're lucky we have translations of versions that are copies of copies of copies of copies, etc. The documents we DO still have are records of a time many people are interested in, to say the least.

I'm wondering, though, about the tendency to downplay the significance of all those fly specs and extra comments in the margins. They can make the difference when it comes to translations.

Any one else have this concern? Is anyone out there reading this who has worked with translating any of the scriptures?