penworks

This reminds me of what happened during my in-rez years ('71-'73), when three women in my Corps during our second year were allowed to spend their 4-hour daily work assignment painting and drawing, using rooms in the Way Cultural Center in New Breman, which was an old church. There also was a recording studio there for the musicians around at that time. The art produced by my Corps sisters was not Bible-oriented, as I recall, but portraits, still life paintings of fruit, etc. Although these weren't used in "moving the Word" I remember VP commenting how the spirit of Christ in these artists is what produced the art and because the art was produced by believers standing on The Word (his interpretation of the Bible, mostly plagarised etc.) it was a witness to the glory of God and the "greatness of His Word" (the vague phrase used as hype for VP's classes). Looking back, I feel VP used people and their art to glorify his organization, taking credit for the quality of their art, as if these people weren't talented before they took PFAL!

For those interested, here is a link to Amazon's page on the book on Fundamentalism by James Barr, which I quoted in my article. I was using his list of hallmarks of fundamentalism. If you go to this page, scroll down to see some reviews of his ideas, in particular his view on inerrancy which I happen to agree with, although I'm sure others won't... Inerrancy per James Barr

Do you want to tell us what you think "the even hotter and more troubling aspects of it" are?

Thank you everyone for addressing my question(s). I appreciate the time and efforts you put into your posts. All this discussion helps me rethink how to refine my thoughts on the issues... Cheers!

Okay, in my view, inerrancy of a document, which is made up of words, would mean it is without error or contradiction. Perhaps what this discussion is getting at is that VPW's view of inerrancy is not what the general population of Evangelicals thinks. Is that what you're trying to say? Here's what the Baptist's web site says about scripture at: http://www.sbc.net/a...asicbeliefs.asp The Scriptures The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation. Is this the view of most Evangelicals? The Baptists I referred to in my previous post who did not sign the inerrancy "loyaly oath" that was shoved at them by the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1980s are still Christians. So there must be something about inerrancy that did not jive with them, but didn't prohibit them from still being Christians. I venture to say there are Christians in other denominations that don't buy into an error-free Bible, either. I'm just trying to figure out why some Christians like those in TWI make such an issue out of it and defend it and others do not.

Can someone here please explain why the tenent of biblical inerrancy is so important to Evangelical Christians and not important to so many other Christians? BTW, Workman, the Baptist Convention you mentioned at one time in the 1980s kicked out any minister who would not sign a document stating that inerrancy was "the truth" or something like that. Seems like an awful power play to me. That split in that church caused misery, broken friendships, and pain to many...I see nothing helpful to the Christian message of "love thy neighbor" in doing that, do you?

Thanks for chiming in with these book titles. I think works like this one (there are others) show that Jesus certainly was a part of that messianic movement during that time, along with his cousin John the Baptist, which means he believed the kingdom of God (as he is shown to describe it by the gospel writers) was going to come before very long - even before he died or shortly afterwards. It didn't, so that poses a problem. VP handled that problem by saying gosh, Jesus just didn't know the mystery etc etc., which is a theological explanation based on what Paul wrote ...but that's another topic... Anyway, Jesus's morality teachings, in my view, were his attempt to warn everyone to shape up or else they woulnd't get into the kingdom. Of course, he wasn't the first one to teach those values...the "golden rule" had been around in other religions for eons... How does this relate to the topic under discussion? In my view, it is another example of his borrowed ways (from Bullinger, etc.) of "proving inerrancy." If you have a Jesus who predicts the end of the world and it doesn't come, then "the whole Bible falls to pieces..." you have to do some bible gymnastics to explain or reinterpret what Jesus is recorded as saying or else claim that he just didn't have all the information going on behind the scenes, etc. (VPW's mystery teachings). I think it's worth questioning VP's methods... P.S. Here are good definitions for research from Merriam Webster: 1 : careful or diligent search 2 : studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws 3 : the collecting of information about a particular subject

Workman, Thanks for the heads up. Charlene

Yes, my interest is a literary curiosity. As a writer, I'd rather let each gospel writer's work stand on its own, rather than smush it into the other ones to make a fifth gospel, but I already said that, right? :-) My "faith" such as it is in an invisible creator, doesn't depend on these things... Cheers

I stand by my view that an harmonizing effort, no matter how well intentioned or how long ago it was attempted (which does not give it any more authority than one done yesterday IMO) ignores the different viewpoints of each gospel and crams them together to say, "Voila! it's one continuous story told in bits and pieces by different people and all the bits actually happened and fit together like a jigsaw puzzle and in the order this harmony says they did." I'd rather accept each one on its own terms and for fun, look into who wrote them, where, and possibly why (although motives are usually hard to determine.) But take what I say with a grain of salt...my interest in the topic is not due to matters of faith, only curiosity.

One good thing might be his reminder to us to, "Read what is written" - that is a good thing. However, he ignored that himself time and time again in his efforts to prove inerrancy. Example: my post #340 on the previous page about the "fifth" gospel he created from trying to harmonize the existing four gospel accounts. In my view this is a serious error. the fifth gospel

Hi Greasespotters: Just a few more words about VPW and inerrancy. The examples he used to "prove inerrancy" are many and can be found in his publications. One way is in his approach to the gospels. For example, in an attempt to "show" that gospel contradictions are not really contradictions, he harmonized different accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection. Refer to the PFAL class and many threads here at GSC like: VP and Bullinger harmonizing gospels To "prove" inerrancy, he tried to splice the gospels together, ignoring their different views, as if he were editing scenes for a film. In my view, the "film" he produced is actually a fifth gospel which not only does not reflect any of the original gospels writers' accounts as they were written, but makes VPW's account appear as if it is the "real" gospel. In my view, by doing that, VPW placed a false halo around the belief in "inerrancy." By creating a "fifth" gospel, VPW reinterpreted each writer's "take" on events. In the process, he avoided having to deal with uncomfortable questions about why there are four different gospels to begin with and how we got them. I do not think that VPW's method respects the gospel texts (written about 35 to 65 years after Jesus died) as we have them today; it only makes VPW a 20st century Bible thumper who tries to sound as if he knows what the "real" gospel should be. BTW – Workman: I checked your GSC profile and saw you mentioned your web site http://www.biblicalr...rchjournal.org/ . Since it is clear you are a proponent of VPW's research and methods, I imagine my line of thinking won't matter much to you since it comes from a different tradition of valuing Biblical documents. So, I offer this post to those interested who happen to still be reading this thread. Cheers!

Do you think he would ever have listened, then, to anyone asking for TWI research to back off from the claim of the inerrancy of scripture as found in the canon of the KJV, which in my view, was his starting point?

Uh, I was making a joke..."the original" was a fiction in his own mind... I could not agree more.

So from this we see a text gaining a reputation, and due to that reputation, gaining authority, and from that authority, having value but that value has become murky over the centuries to people like us who live far away and in a different time. This version was, as Bob points out, a popular one valued by users so it survived. It is not the Aramaic original that VP often talked about. When VP said the "original" it did not refer to any text necessarily. The Way had its own "original" text - it was in VP's mind.

Thanks for the background info, Bob. I knew you had it in you! And I imagine this is instructive for those here who are curious about why TWI focused on Syriac and just what the heck all the Aramaic talk was about...

Shellon, Bramble, Jeffsio, I admire you for sharing your painful experiences - thank you. Thank you for reminding us that we can retain our humanity in the face of destructive accusations and assertions propounded by what masquerades as godly religion. These stories raise all sorts of ethical and moral issues, not to mention how they serve to show where compassion is NOT found. My heart goes out to you...my sufferings post-twi were minor compared with your grievous losses. Your bravery inspires. Thank you, Pen

I re-read one of my comments from that post called Research and Premises and wanted to make a clarification about the Syriac text used in TWI research. It is a version of the N.T. and it is spelled P-e-s-h-i-t-t-a. I put hyphens in it because if you don't do that on this site, it comes out spelled Pedangta, perhaps because this site's software "thinks" the word is saying something about s-h-i-t, which it is not, of course. Anyway, the following in bold is what I wrote and then in italics I've put in the correction. I feel certain that Roberterasmus can explain more about this Syriac text than I can since he studied Syriac at the Univ. of Chicago, so correct me if I'm wrong, Bob, okay? "Various Greek texts, as well as the Syriac version, which most scholars believe is a translation of the Greek (vpw referred to it as "Estrangelo Aramaic") were consulted. ..." Correction: Some scholars find that portions of the P-e-s-h-i-t-t-a are translated from an earlier Greek text. Which Greek text that was I do not know. But not all scholars think so. But I do know that there are debates about the integrity of the P-e-s-h-i-t-t-a and its history, but it is the only stable N.T. in Syriac that is around and so was used in the TWI research effort. Bob, would you like to add more info about this text and also perhaps any thing you can tell us about older Aramaic text fragments that were used in TWI research? Thanks, Pen

For those interested, here's a link to another topic that you might find relevant to this discussion. Research and premesis Cheers!

Help me out here...I don't know what "interpreting the texts with mathematical intelligence" is much less how to do it. Language doesn't seem to work like mathematics does, but maybe I just don't know enough to get it. Or maybe that phrase refers to reasoning and thinking and propositions that underlie what words try to convey...fill me in more, though, because I am interested. I remember VP used to use that phrase mathematical exactness and scientific precison but when writing English or translating other languages, things are not always so clear cut...are they?

If my memory serves me correctly, it was about Peter's preaching style or something like that, something to do with Peter anyway...

Thanks, I appreciate that...

Just for the record, W*lter C*mmins left around the time LCM demanded that loyalty oath thing, I believe. I do not know the exact year or exact circumstances, since he left years after I left. W*lter was 16 when he got into TWI, so although VPW probably learned some things from him later in life after W*lter learned some Greek, mostly it was the other way around. Although W*lter had been VP's assistant researcher since the early 1970s, and led the research department from then on, VP put W*lter in charge of research 100% when VP retired in 1982; at the same time LCM was made President.

Well, just one last comment about what Bob said: "Though probably better in another thread, I could show the value of the Syriac Interlinear and certainly some of the other things that we worked on. It is a more complicated story about TWI than VP governed every jot and tittle that went out of there. " The VPW-driven research, such as the collaterals and larger works like Jesus Christ our Passover, etc. carried his interpretation of scriptures and in my view came under the umbrella of trying to make scriptures "fit like a hand in a glove" (inerrancy) and was in a different category than the academic study textbooks, such as the Aramaic concordance and interlinear, which are used, I understand, even by people outside TWI who are interested in studying the Syriac N.T. That is the text that VPW was usually referring to when he said Aramaic. Sometimes, as Bob may well explain in another thread, older text fragments in Aramaic might have been quoted as more "accurate" readings of some verses, here and there, but for the most part when we prepared Corps night notes, we referred to the Syriac and those guys on the team who were trained in Greek referred to the Stephens text and other texts which notate some other alternate readings as well. As for bibliolatry, yes some people I think became so obsessed with the authority of the written words that they forgot their spiritual life and qualified the Bible as their only source for knowing God. That would have been the reasonable outcome based on the rhetoric in PFAL. But if I might chide my fellow greasespotters a little bit, let's try and avoid using broad strokes when painting a picture of what all of us in research were like. An important part of any Bible research, seems to me, is to identify what the words in the Bible are, thus the need to "nit pick" each verse, I guess. After all, isn't the Bible where Christians and Jews get their ideas about God and Jesus from in the first place? Even the early church fathers did, too, right?

What you say is very true, Bob, about the value of some (and only a little bit IMO) of research work that was being done back then, in particular the Aramaic Concordance and Interlinear (my story An Affinity for Windows posted on the front page here tries to tell that story in part). Those are good academic works; I worked on them, albeit in a small way. There is at least one thread at this site started by others that I've posted in here about research, so I'll try and find them for you, or I believe if you use the Search feature here they'll pop up. Did you know that currently there is a lawsuit going on in which TWI is suing an organization in Texas for copyright infringement regarding the translation found in the Interlinear? The unfortunate thing about the Interlinear translation done by your colleague and mine, Jo* W*se, was changed after he was "fired" so that it would comply with TWI teachings, i.e. the Eli Eli issue around "forsake." The person TWI brought in to do that was, you might remember, B*uce M*hone who now runs a TWI offshoot now called Capital Area Fellowship or something like that. Regarding the Eli Eli issue, when I asked W*lter whether Lamsa could've just misled VP, he said, "Charlene, Dr. Wierwille was more spiritual than we are." So when you're up against that sort of thinking, which valued VPW's interpretations and opinions over what the text actually said, what do you do? Anyway, in my opinion, some efforts at Greek work done by others on the team while I was there were done competently in good faith by well meaning people, some of whom were trained, as you were, at the Univ. of Chicago. The problem, as I see it, was that there was no avenue for correcting VP's errors in Greek translating or Syriac that he had already taught and were considered by many TWI followers to be the "accuracy of the Word." Nor was there a way to retrieve or address some teachings he changed over the years, i.e. the issue of when soul life begins, as cited in my story. While I was on the team, VP was the invisible "Big Brother" always watching us and this pressure on W*lter made things uncomfortable, at best. But the larger issues for me became, and I only speak for myself, the unspoken but implied message that for me to "walk with God" I would need to know 1) the accuracy of the Bible 2) to know God's will 3) which leads to the understanding that if I did not want to take anyone else's word for what the Bible said, then I would need to 4) learn the manuscript languages for myself, i.e. Greek and Syriac, Coptic, Latin, etc. to do research in order to 5) know the Bible in order to 6) know what "God" was really saying (and I came to realize that might not be what I was dealing with when reading the Bible) 7) in order to do the will of God, etc. etc.. which is what I thought I should do in life. Mmmm....when I finally started thinking about all that, it seemed an unattainable goal for me and I suspect it is for most people and it didn't make much practical sense or financial sense, not to mention spiritual sense. I figured if it was that hard and convoluted - and expensive in more ways than one - to know God and live a spiritual life, well... I'd try and find another way to do it. Please know that while I respect the academic endeavors and training of people like yourself, and of course my old friend J*e W*se who is still my friend (in fact I have extremely high regard for academia and am even married to an academic now ) when it comes to things religious, I am one of those people who feels that spirituality is personal and does not require the treadmill of Bible study or other written material to attain, although those seem to augment it for some people. As an aside, I am beginning to think it would be a very interesting project to get translated into English other ancient writings from other cultures that have been left out in the cold of academic pursuit because of how much money, time, and effort is still focused in the West, at least, on Bible materials. If I had different training and a different life, I might try that just for fun. Withe respect and best regards, Charlene