penworks

Yes, Happy Mothers' Day to all moms everywhere. Enjoy it! I am already... :D

A very thought provoking thread, Rascal! After I left TWI, I spent a long time reflecting on my belief system – why I believed this or that, what parts were "negotiable" or unimportant [which grew as time went on] and what was essential. It slowly dawned on me how mind-numbing and boring life was in TWI. It was a comfortable zone, I'll give you that – but the rigid mindset was almost like drug to escape the realities of life…If life were likened to a journey on the river – there I was with typical TWI-bravado, shouting "I'm king of the world" while standing in a boat safely tied to the dock.

Here I am almost 22 years down the road from TWI-world, with perhaps a more flexible belief system and tenets of my own choosing. I think it's cool to check out other viewpoints. There's a lot of turns and things unknown on this journey, so input from fellow-travelers can be helpful at times. Sure, we all have a core set of beliefs by which we "measure" things and negotiate this journey – but in my humble opinion learning and growth come to those who have the courage to step outside their comfort zone…it makes for a more interesting experience, anyway. And I find as I explore someone else's beliefs – I really wind up exploring my own – even when their beliefs are very different from mine. It reminds me of something I found in The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler, on Atheism:

"The Loyal Opposition. Atheists are the loyal opposition to theists. It is difficult to see the fallacies in one's own thinking. Atheists serve as a corrective to invalid theistic reasoning. Their arguments against theism should give pause to dogmatism and temper the zeal with which many believers glibly dismiss unbelief. In fact, atheists serve a significant corrective role for theistic thinking. Monologues seldom produce refined thought. Without atheists, theists would lack significant opposition with which to dialogue and clarify their concepts of God."

End of excerpts

…So, I agree with your point…and summing up my two cents into one fat penny [and don't spend it all in one place ] – we are drawn to that which agrees with our viewpoint – but as we broaden our thinking there's the potential for deepened understanding and growth.

Wonderful, insightful post, T-Bone. Thank you very much! This sentence of yours is one I hope to keep in mind a long time and remember in times of complacency: "...in my humble opinion, learning and growth come to those who have the courage to step outside their comfort zone…it makes for a more interesting experience, anyway."

Thanks and cheers!

For me Ham,

In my heart I hold on to the idea of "The Way" as it should have or could have been.

This is a common sentiment of may former twi followers. I felt it myself for a while. It was not easy to face my dream's disintegration. But indeed, it was my dream. I had not understood the assumptions on which vpw built his ministry. IMO, the system was a closed one from the beginning. He based it on the "truth" that the Bible was perfect and it was God's Word [he said Rosalind Rinker convinced him of that. Info on her is available on the Internet].

As DontWorryBeHappy so aptly depicted in the current tread "what does scripture refer to," vpw's "WORD" theology was not solid rock.

The bigger context of a group like twi is Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism which does not leave any wiggle room for questions like we've been asking over in that post. In general, they are in the catagory of what's known as textual and historical criticism which is NOT ALLOWED. Why? Those questions undercut the assumptions of people like vpw who clung to (out of fear in my opinion) the belief that the Bible has to be perfect and the only truth in the universe in order to make life worth living.

Seems to me people found life worth living for YEARS before the Bible was around.

The sad part for me was that "The Way" said it was a ministry devoted to research. In the early 1970s, vp claimed that if "we" learned more, we would teach it, that if "we" discovered that "we" were wrong in something we taught, we could change as "we" learned new things in research.

But he seems to have had an agenda different than those words I heard.

PFAL was, as someone said on gsc recently, the money maker and that couldn't be recalled, like defective tires by Firestone.

Imagine what would have happened if it had?

Anyhow, that's my 2 cents for today.

~ "All we are saying is give peace a chance."

Good morning.

Reply to DontWorryBeHappy: Your depiction of what it was like to do research at twi is very fair [and lively!]. I was in very similar meetings with vic and others and saw the same patterns of methodology. Sometimes it was very tense. Sometimes he picked a Greek word over a Syriac word or vice versa to fit with what he called his "scope of the Word" or what he'd say "had to be the original." In the end, vic was the authority.

Given the paramenters [straight-jackets for some of us] vp had declared, i.e. the PFAL keys to research and the fundamentalist claim that the bible had to have no "errors," only a certain kind of debate was acceptable before he made up his mind. And I saw no free debates to change anything after he decided what THE WORD was.

To be fair, some of us let his status intimidate us into not challenging him. But I know of some who did challenge him. They either walked away or were kicked out and the details of those situations mostly were relegated to the "lockbox," much like some women's stories we know of now...

Reply to InvisibleDan: Yeah, the unknown can be a disorienting place, but like you, I think it's worth the adventure of keeping a curious mind alive. My "faith" or "spiritual life" doesn't need written sources like it used to.

Reply to Socks: Mmm...gotta think about this last post of yours for awhile.

Meanwhile, for those interested, here are a few sites that give some info on where the heck II Peter came from:

Second Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Commentaries and reference books have placed 2 Peter in almost every decade from 60 to ... Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter - 73k - Cached - Similar pages

More results from en.wikipedia.org »

2 Peter

Kummel presents the arguments that make all critical scholars recognize that II Peter is a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 430-4): ...

www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages

Bible Basics - II Peter

This letter, like I Peter, bears the name of the apostle. But most scholars (even from early times) believe that it was written in the name of Peter, ...

netministries.org/Bbasics/BB2Peter.htm - 4k - Cached - Similar pages

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Epistles of Saint Peter

Eusebius of Caesarea (340), while personally accepting II Peter as authentic and canonical, nevertheless classes it among the disputed works (antilegomena), ...

www.newadvent.org/cathen/11752a.htm - 51k - Cached - Similar pages

USCCB - NAB - 2 Peter 1

1 [1] Symeon Peter: on the authorship of 2 Peter, see Introduction; on the spelling here of the Hebrew name Simon, cf Acts 15:14. The greeting is especially ...

www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2peter/2peter1.htm - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

Lindy... and Invisible...,

Your input is very intriguing and makes me feel as if I'm not the only one with these sorts of questions. Thanks!

I've been thinking along these lines for some time now and have read in other sources some of what you outline here.

While it may not be important to some, to me it's very important to understand what these documents are before I go around quoting them and saying "Thus said the Lord," or claiming these documents are The Word of God.

That was what I felt when I brought up this issue to the founder of the first twi offshoot, which I mentioned in the beginning of this post. I understood he did not want to address my question. It's scary. It had been frightening for me at first to consider what I'd learned in twi might not be the whole story. If you start thinking about these things, you begin to doubt what you know. One question leads to another. Then you don't have a nice doctrine to promote.

I also am concerned when I hear people saying "I believe the Bible." What exactly does that phrase mean? It seems it could mean anything. Sure I believe it exists. Sure I believe there are some true sayings in it and much good advice for moral and compassionate living (if I ignore the violence in the O.T. and the ostracizing etc. in the N.T.).

But that's not what people usually mean. I just don't know what people mean unless I pin them down and ask them to clarify. I ask, "You believe WHAT about the Bible?" I honestly want to know. But often people get defensive so then I quit.

Sometimes they say, "It's God's Word whether you believe it or not." That just does not help me. When I left twi, they said, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." But they didn't explain what the BABY is. God?

At this point, I'm inclinded to go with something the religion historian, Karen Armstrong points out, "The major religions all insist that the practice of daily, hourly compassion will introduce us to God, Nirvana, and the Dao. An exegesis based on the 'principle of charity' would be a spiritual discipline that is deeply needed in our torn and fragmented world." The Bible - a Biography. pg. 229.

Guess that's my 2 cents for today.

Cheers!

Oh, Dan the great biblical researcher, thank you over and over for recovering this lost text. Truly you have set us free!

Haven't laughed this hard over good satire for while. Were you around when we used to say "GMIR a minute." ?

Thanks for the info in the II Peter 1:20 thread.

penworks

Hello again,

I've found all the responses on this topic very interesting and thought-provoking. It's been said that one's ideas need to be challenged to become clear to oneself. Thus, the need for debate. Thus, democracy (or at least a republic ). So thanks everyone at gsc.

Socks, I like the way you pointed out that there are various ways "God" can communicate with us. Indeed! (Here I'll put in a plug for William James' Varieties of Religious Experience.

Real quick before I need to cook dinner - ya'll might find these helpful:

1. IMO this is a good source regarding N.T.: http://www.ntcanon.org/index.shtml

2. There are sites with the chronology of NT writings. One I like includes other events going on in the world at the time of the writings (but watch out, it's compiled by "atheists"

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/chri...ron_xian_nt.htm

happy studying...

This is a sad loss. I like his "I Go Crazy."

Thanks, socks. You've given me much to ponder. Gotta go now and take care of family matters, but will check back later. Again, I appreciate your thought-out post.

enjoy your day!

Just to clarify, the emphasis of my sentence should have started with the fact the translation is from 1611 and may or may not reflect what the writer meant when he wrote it. It may not necessarily have the exact same definition of the 1611 English word ...

I did not mean to be unfair to John, only to say that sometimes a word's definition in one language doesn't carry the original meaning from another language, especially when that original language you're translating from comes from such a different culture from so long ago.

peace,

penworks

To brideofjc: No need to take my comments personally. And no big deal about the Ehrman, Pagels, etc. opinions. We're mature enough here to agree to disagree, right?

...cheers!

To be fair to John, I think it's pretty much a given that most people know that the verse wasn't written in 1611.

Just to clarify, the emphasis of my sentence should have started with the fact the translation is from 1611 and may or may not reflect what the writer meant when he wrote it. It may not necessarily have the exact same definition of the 1611 English word ...

I did not mean to be unfair to John, only to say that sometimes a word's definition in one language doesn't carry the original meaning from another language, especially when that original language you're translating from is such a different culture from so long ago.

peace,

penworks

I'm not trying to control what you read, Penworks, how can I? I do not even know where you live, OMG. And I never said that Ehrmann has flippant questions either. I just question the depth of his faith if he could let textual criticism excise it from his life.

No need to take that personally.

peace,

penworks

p.s. I agree some people get too caught up with the Book, what books make up the book, and what each Greek, Hebrew, etc. word might mean and forget about their "spiritual life" whatever they want to call that experience. These issues are of historical and literary interest, as far as I am concerned.

Some people call preoccupation with the Bible "bibliolatry." We used to scoff in twi when critics accused us of that. Now I suspect they were right about some people but not all...

peace,

penworks

A L-I-B-E-R-A-L (gasp!) and you actually admitted it????

I just said weigh it with caution. Whether you are liberal or conservative, all works should be weighed with caution and if they line up with the written

WORD OF GOD. As far as Ehrman goes, I know his bio states that he was an evangelical in his teens and with the study of textual criticism actually talked

himself out of his own faith. I would then question the roots of his faith. They must not have gone very deep. Although on the other hand, one could get

too lost in books and especially THE BOOK and forget about the AUTHOR.

Weigh everything with caution, I say. In particular, watch out for people who are trying to control what you read and find out what is motivating them.

For me the old phrase "line up with The Word of God" (I remember vp using that phrase) is subjective, and depends on who is defining what it means and describing how to do it.

In my experience, the actual doing of that is what has raised all my questions to begin with.

And "line it up" seems an odd expression to apply to language. Language IMO is a way of expressing ideas and is not an exact scientific endeavor, like math or physics. Not to mention how translating from one language to another includes interpretation, etc. This is not like solving equations. Anyhow, I suspect this discussion encompasses far too much for an Internet forum.

BTW - Ehrman raises intellectually honest questions, IMO. They are not flippant questions. And, I don't see any trite or vague phrases to explain anything. He does not insult my intelligence or assume I can't think for myself.

As you can readily see from all my posts, I think it's important to read as widely as one can on any topic, not in search of THE ANSWER, but to keep one's mind alive and well and curious.

Cheers!

penworks

I think for most "searchers" who aren't carrying a whole boatload of bias, the Vicster's "ministry" can be pretty easily dismissed out of hand. There was just too much nonsense, self-serving, plagiarism, and huckstering going on for any real substance to be there (IMNSHO).

But once one gets past their cult experience and baggage, I guess you would need to seriously consider just what it is that MERITS any disciplined study, wouldn't you?

And, in that vein, why is it that The Bible should be regarded with any reverence to begin with? Is it intellectually honest to approach your search for the "Truth" with the a-priori assumption that The Bible is "The Word of God"? I sure wouldn't think so.

Why should The Bible be given such authority, right out of the box, when there's so many other works with claims of Divine authorship available?

Yeah, I know. I'm a miserable heathen to even suggest such a thing. It just seems to me that Theological Studies have a helluva lot more to do with tradition and superstition than with any real, disciplined, dispassionate study. Feelings and preconceived notions always seem to carry the day for the true believer. "Don't tell me that God wasn't showing me such and such..." seems to be the sort of refrain I hear whenever I question basic Christian beliefs. If that works for you, fine, I guess...

George, you asked: Is it intellectually honest to approach your search for the "Truth" with the a-priori assumption that The Bible is "The Word of God"? I sure wouldn't think so. Why should The Bible be given such authority, right out of the box, when there's so many other works with claims of Divine authorship available?

My comments: I think these are good and honest questions, and are ones I've asked for years, too. For me, the awareness of how this idea originated has helped. The Fundamentals, published in the 1920s, helped establish this a-priori assumption in this country, but looking back to John Wycliffe's time in England also sheds some light. Check out Wide as the Waters by Benson Bobrick. It is a great lesson in the history of how the English Bible came to be, the Catholic and Protestant views that challenged (many times drew blood) each other, etc. and brought us up to this time of labeling the Bible as The Word of God. Protestants threw out the authority of the Catholics who held church dogma (passed along for centuries) and scripture as two sources for directing conduct. Luther's protests against the Church came later and only made the idea stronger IMO.

Again, this is a huge topic which encompasses inerrancy, translations, versions, history, politics, etc.

And, indeed, other works like the Koran etc. claim divine authorship. A good source for gaining a scope of world religions and myths is Joseph Campbell's work. Now we're getting into a really huge topic. Since I'm no scholar, only a person asking pesky questions, I'll stop here.

Gotta go do some gardening now...

peace,

penworks

Princeton is very liberal in their views so if you read any of their works, weigh it with caution. Bart Ehrman has left Christianity, I do believe and that about sums it up for me.

My criteria for accurate content would be this: does it line up with other noted and established texts. Is the HOLY SPIRIT warning me in any way that it isn't right. Have other scholars read it and what do they say about the content.

Well, I do think Elaine Pagels has done some excellent work, but I'm a "liberal" so that's okay with me... :)

And I view Ehrman as one of the few willing to stick his neck out on topics such as this and not hold back.

peace,

penworks

Wierwille agreed with Lamsa, who believed that the NT was originally written in Aramaic.

He threw around the term "Estrangelo Aramaic" which referred to the script that the language was written in, not a dialect.

Indeed, Estrangelo is the name of a script used to write the Syriac or "Aramaic" language. There are other scripts, too, like the Jacobite or Nestorian used in writing/printing the New Testament.

2 Timothy 2:15a (NIV)

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved.

Wow, that is totally different than study. You see, the Greek word spudoso does not mean study. It means to apply a diligent effort. You could say, “Make a diligent effort to present yourself approved unto God.” Why does the King James Version say the word study? It says that because in 1611 when only 10% of the population could read you studied by being a disciple. A silver smith in 1611 did not become a silver smith by reading books. They studied, that is to say that they apprenticed with a silver smith. He would have them first build the right kind of fire. They might spend a year learning how to build it right. Then, they learn to melt the silver to the right temperature. A period of study occurred that might have gone on for years. Today, sometimes we call that understudy. In 1611, it is very important that you understand that at that time study did not mean read. It meant to understudy and make a diligent effort when you understudy the person.

This is a snipit from an article by John S. So I guess there is more to it than just a head game.

Regarding this : "In 1611, it is very important that you understand that at that time study did not mean read. It meant to understudy and make a diligent effort when you understudy the person."

What John S. left out of this explanation is that this verse wasn't WRITTEN in 1611, it was TRANSLATED in 1611. He's giving you an interpretation of what the TRANSLATORS meant by "study." The translators were not the WRITERS of the verse. They had to pick which English word to use that they thought would carry the meaning of the Greek word in that verse. They were the pros at that time, and my hat is off to them for the monumental task they undertook and finished. But they, too, had their agendas, and we'll never know how those affected their work. Translating, inherently, involves interpretation, in my view. An interesting book on the history of the English Bible is Wide as the Waters, the Story of the English Bible and the Revolution It Inspired." Just some food for thought for those interested.

Sometimes I'm curious about what the original writer meant in this verse. Most likely he referred to the OT scrolls, as was mentioned earlier in this thread. But since we DO NOT HAVE any originals of any document included in the cannon, we have our best "guess" from looking at all the copies in existence. But that takes access to those texts. Since I'm not a textual scholar, I shy away from speculating on what the original writer meant (in Greek, which most scholars believe the N.T. was written in.)

I've gotten used to the idea that I have to accept that the author lived in a completely different kind of world than I live in today and held cultural assumptions I may not understand since he was an Oriental living about 18 centuries ago and I'm a 21st century American. (twi tried to cover that base by offering classes on Orientalisms, but to me that was a very biased class).

Well, this is a huge topic and perhaps I should just let it rest...I am only an amatuer asking a bunch questions that my life does not depend on...

That seems a valid and obvious point ... but such things were commonly overlooked i think ...

I remember some corps week teaching I think ... about gematria or something. It was where the letters had numeric values, and you could add the numbers up to come up with totals that supposedly had significance. But they used the Greek, while twi had been teaching the originals were in Aramaic.

So I asked someone smart I guess, but it was basically, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". No point in having to answer to clear contradictions.

People are more comfortable ust accepting that they have the answers than having to face such facts. Like vp when he mocked the one guy "I have the answer" ... so that guy was vpw.

I suppose one could say "all scripture" just meant all scripture, whether it had been written yet or not. But how it was determined to include some "scripture" and not other "writings" is not clear. VP's answer was simple ... if it was wrong, he'd tell us.

To my knowledge, VP did not publically question the cannon as it was in the KJV. During my Corps training were we did not question it. VP used the terms "scripture," "God's Word," "The Word of God," and "The Bible" interchangeably in my experience with twi.

I think we have to be careful about saying: "I suppose one could say "all scripture" just meant all scripture, whether it had been written yet or not." At the time the writer of this verse wrote this verse, it seems to me that he referred to certain documents that the readers of the verse were familiar with, which actually existed. If it would refer to anything "not written yet" who is to say which ones those would be? What would be the criteria for determining which ones they were?

Also, remember, the deciders of the cannon were people with their own assumptions, opinions, politics, etc. Most Christians have accepted the ancient decisions of Iranaeus, bishop of Lyons, and Origen, (an Egyptian teacher from the 3rd century) seemingly without question. There are lots of books on this topic which are easy to read and readily available, such as Beyond Belief by Elaine Pagels, professor at Princeton and others like Bart Ehrman's who wrote The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. A good source containg many other documents left out of the OT and NT is The Other Bible, by Willis Barnstone.

Question for brideofjc's following comment:

There are many writiings that didn't make the grade as far as being of apostolic authorship etc., dates were wrong, such as letters claiming to have been written by an apostle, but they were penned after the apostle had been martyred. Many such letters or writings are called pseudepigrapha or "false writings"not that they are "false" in every sense of the word, but that the authorship that they are ascribed to is not accurate. The content could be very accurate. "

penworks: What is your criteria for determining "content" that is "accurate"?

Thanks T-Bone and Doojable ... much clearer now ...

Maybe I need a timeline ...

• 1984? lcm humiliates twi with AOS ... football player in tights with girlfriends
  
• 1986 POP and follow up rev meeting ... all sane people left (cuz that is when I left )
  
• 1987? people excommunicated just for reading the "devilish" adultery paper
  
• 1989 oath of allegiance to lcm as mogfart
  
• 199? lcm makes a deal ... becomes ceo of Home Depot
  
• 2002 GSC opens ... hundreds get possessed by reading posts ....
  
• 2008 v2p2 starts way corpse 2 ... the dead are alive now
  

then on the bottom side of the line ... when the splinter men branched of and started collecting their own abs

But anyway ... The Secret Agenda Society really revealed their roots were not in da wurhd when they chose obvious vicster error over any semblance of humility to reproof. It really was a den of iniquity, and they didn't want to give it up.

Vic at least built the web (of deceit) ... these current folks are just inherited it ...

I can help with a few of timeline items mentioned in this post, since I was at HQ:

April 23, 1986 - PoP read at Corps night (about 2 and 1/2 hrs.) in WOW Auditorium at HQ and off-site Corps on the field via dial-in phone-hook-ups

Oct. 23, 1986 - John S. fired at HQ

Nov 1986 - Clergy meeting at HQ

How do we get this topic moved to the Doctrinal forum? (good idea, AnotherDan). Although I really did not intend it as a doctrinal issue, more like a textual history issue, but some may interpret it as doctrinal...

That's the only sensible option in my view.

Unfortunately, the way many folks "rework" what was in PFAL is to glance at the King James or maybe crack open a Young's concordance for a cursory look.

Unless one tosses out Wiewille's made-up definitions of Greek and Hebrew words, his false assumptions and unwarranted leaps of illogic, his misrepresentations of what other Christians actually believe, and generally shoddy research skills, one isn't really "checking it for yourself".

"Keeping the fish and spitting out the bones" assumes that you can tell the difference between the fish and the bones.

Yeah, I considered "reworking everything" in 1986 when I resigned from the research team.

But that thought drove me nuts; I realized that could go on forever.

Then I thought "why spend all my life trying to correct VP? Besides, I didn't have the academic background for doing it anyway, I simply had just seen enough problems, flaws in his work, theology, etc. to sink a battleship and was sick of the fanatical fundamentalism twi promoted.

Then I thought, VP's biblical research methods and desire for world-domination had already taken 16 years of my life and I didn't think his work or his "cause" was worth a minute more. Nor were any offshoots.

Then I thought, I could instead invest my time and energy in my own education, develop my own talents, get a decent job, straighten out my life, etc.

So that last thought won out.

I often find myself asking questions about my faith, whether they be religious/spiritual questions relating to Christianity in particular, or philosophical questions relating to the existence of God or to His supposed attributes and actions in general. Or I find myself putting myself in the place of a follower of a different religion or the place of an agnostic or atheist, and play their role in what they would say, what their objections would be to my arguments for or against a certain subject, etc.

It sounds kind of funny, I know. But it's a good thing to question. It strengthens your faith and you learn something new about your faith as a result. :)

Does anyone else do this?

~Phil

Been doing this for years and years...it's an adventure!

Not sure what you mean by "your faith" though. I hold to no particular religious "belief system" anymore, but rather try to stay in touch with my intuition and act with compassion (not always successful, for sure) which is my way of describing a spiritual part of my life...

Have you checked out any books by Karen Armstrong who writes wonderful histories of religion? I highly recommend her work.

I'm beginning to loathe my memories of TWI more than I ever have.

This stuff got swept under the rug. Even once is too much. But it happened again and again.

No prayer, no memorial, no apologies. And this was supposed to be a church?

Instead, that elitist-ego-MOG mentality to cover his own a$$.

I'm gonna go pay some tribute time in the memorium threads...

Agree.

And IMO, Dontworrybehappy summed it all up.

brideofjc Posted Today, 07:25 PM

QUOTE(penworks @ Apr 28 2008, 01:41 PM)

One bit of info to add to this thread:

In '87 after I'd left HQ and was far far away, I told the leader of the first offshoot that unlike him, I wasn't comfortable with assuming that the keys to research, etc. that VP taught were right. For instance, I wondered what the word "scripture" really referred to in that verse that says all scripture is given by inspiration of God, etc.

I told him that as far as I knew, the cannon of the Bible wasn't established at the time that verse was written so how could "scripture" in that verse refer to the whole Bible as we have it today? He said he didn't have time to do all that research...

That's one reason why I had a problem with "offshoots." So I went to college, read lots of books, and got a degree in English.

brideofjc

The Greek word simply means "writings" which would include OT and the new forming NT, even though they weren't calling it that yet.

penworks: That's my point. There was no NT yet. There was no Bible yet. Didn't VPW teach that this word "scripture" referred to the Bible? Seems to me his stance was that the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation was what the word "scripture" referred to here. Maybe I'm wrong...but I think he got this idea from another fundamentalist...

Well, my story is off this topic, so I'll save it for another time...