penworks

This is K*n Br*own, a grad of the 3rd Corps who worked as W*alter C*um*ins assistant in the 1980s to about 1988 or so and he was also in charge of the Library at HQ but was not "officially" on the Research Team. I know him because I was in the 2nd Corps when he was in the 3rd Corps and when I was on the Research team 1984-1986 my desk was right across from his in the research room for two years. As it says on this web site, he taught math at one time and he was ordained by VPW. He was a loyal wayfer and it looks as if he still holds to VPW dogmas.

Just for the record, there was no research department with people dedicated to doing any "research" at the Indiana Campus. The name of that property just propped up the idea of research being taught in classes to the Corps, classes like O.T. history, Figures of Speech, Intro Greek, Aramaic, etc. just at they were taught in Emporia to the Corps there. At the Emporia campus in the 1980s, there was one staff person, a Corps grad , who conducted some Aramaic manuscript research. Before that, in 1978 at Emporia, three in-resident corps people were assigned a 4-hour/day job doing some research stuff but they discovered major problems with VP's work and left/were kicked out, whatever... During the 1970s and 1980s, there were individuals scattered around the country (some at Univ. of Chicago, some at other colleges, some trained in-house at TWI like me in Aramaic) who were "on the field" and affiliated with the "official" reasearch department at HQ in New Knoxville where the "official" research was done for publication. That department grew from two people in 1970 (W*lter C*mmins and B*er*ita J*ss to about 10 people in 1984 when I worked there. Over the years people were hired and fired or left on their own, as has been discussed on other threads here. There are some old posts here by Catcup who did research for LCM after I left, etc. So the fact that these properties were sold off does not, IMO, impact any notion of a loss in the research area. Just a loss of places to indoctrinate Corps.

...and now for something completely different...

Yes, and that's another part of why I've let go of the Christian myth ...

Yes, there's a big difference. And there is also a big difference between rejecting the inherited Hebrew interpretation of God that I think the Christians use, which includes the metaphors and the attributes, and viewing "God" in an entirely different way, as I've come to do, which is sort of like Einstein's creative force, or the life force, as ancient sages refer to it. It's what I sense as the creative process, since I'm a writer and that's the way I account for the inexplicable whatever it is...and besides that, I like meditation while sitting next to the lake and watching the turtles in the sun...that's all part of it, too... I think many of us get caught in the metaphors and mistake them for the realities they only point to...just some food for thought... So in traditional terms, I suppose I would be labeled an agnostic, as far the Hebrew or Christian God is concerned. What interests me more is the experience of life. But now I digress...

I appreciate and thank you for your feelings - I'll just say it's been a long personal journey. Although some people may assume from my article and story posted here it's because I had issues with inerrancy or the history of the text or something like that...they would be wrong. Nope, that's not the case. Nor is it because of anything TWI did or didn't do or research "correctly." That experience just set me on a path of discovery for myself. It has to do with what I see as the starting point or basic assumption of Christianity - that man comes into the world fallen or separate from his "maker" and is inadequate. However, on the bright side, I see religions often valuable in ways of creating community and providing social support when they're not dogmatic, but I shy away from adapting any one of them for myself. Over the years, writers like Joseph Campbell have been helpful to me and I've found loads of enlightenment from literature of various sorts...but that's just me. Cheers!

I can tell you this, that they are following a looonnnggg tradition of doing this in TWI. When we (the research team) worked on the Literal Translations according to Usage with W*lter C*ummins in 1984-86 in preparation for his Corps teachings, we had to cross check our findings with former VPW teachings on the verses we were "working" so that we didn't come up with anything different (or too different) than what VP had already taught on the matter, specifically I and II Thessalonians during those two years. I know they had to do that in previous years, too. Do you know that's why he got fired from the research team?

Hi there, Bob. It's great to have you here, and I for one appreciate your willingness to post on this ever-meandering topic. Thanks for your perspective and insights...we've sure come a long way from those old TWI "research" days, huh? I hope you'll post more on these pertinent topics that affected so many ex-TWI folks. As you said, it's valuable to understand how the research got the way it was...as you look around GSC, you'll find many other voices that add to the history of it all, too... Cheers! Charlene

Thanks for the current info, O.S. As you mentioned, there are lots of threads here about TWI so-called biblical research. Here's an oldie but goodie: Research ministry?

Nicely put, Taz. Now a word from our sponsor... Argument clinic

Well, to me it's a matter of holding a certain viewpoint as to whether or not we get a story with so much continuity etc. as Geisha stated, "how we got a story full of continuity and congruence over 3 continents, 3 languages, 1500 years, 66 books, and 40 authors from all walks of life telling one story about one particular man to come . . . having arrived. . . did what He did and left. .. promising to return." This is wide open for interpretation and debate and in my view most likely belongs in the doctrinal forum.

Geisha, Just so you know, you give me plenty to think over and I do appreciate the time you take in your posts. Your many descriptions of the different documents in the Bible and what they say of themselves were lovely. And they were just that: different documents. My question was along a different line, though. To me, since each description or claim or statement you gave is from or about a particular book in the Bible (a stand-alone piece of writing) none of them is referring to the Bible as a whole. We both know this and most readers here do, too, that since the Bible was assembled years later than the time when those passages were written, how in the world could any of those passages refer to the final product called the Bible? It didn’t exist when they were written. That was what I was questioning. My question was about trying to understand how, as many people do, using one description in one gospel or epistle or Old Testament book could be a statement about the whole Bible? It seems impossible to me. For instance, VP and others interpret such statements as John 17:17 as referring to the Bible, but that verse in fact is from a prayer Jesus was saying out loud to God, and included the phrase: “Thy word is truth.” Jesus did not say (and I know this is silly but bear with me) these books in the Bible are “truth” because obviously there was no Bible yet and (we both know this, too) the men who decided which documents to put in it were not in agreement for a long time. This info is readily available, even on Wikipedia (for anyone reading this who wants more info). Anyhow, to avoid pounding this into the ground (or repeating myself as was mentioned I do) I’ll just sign off by saying my interest is in understanding each document in the Bible separately, on its own terms, and how the men who wrote them came to do it. Geisha, I think that’s where our mix up in communication often stems from...maybe not. No hard feelings... Cheers!

Hey there. C'mon in and rest awhile. There's plenty to chew on here and lots of similar journeys to read and learn from. Take your time and know we're happy to help however we can! Cheers!

Gosh, I just wondered where in the Bible the claim was that referred to the whole Bible, since the Bible wasn't put together until LONG after any of those documents were written. Anyway, no big deal. Too many canons can be called the Bible anyway, which complicates the matter further. Guess as an unbeliever in the statement that the Bible is God's Word, I'll step out of this thread. I ain't no scholar or theologian...I just ask too many silly questions.

One question for Geisha regarding her statement: "This specific collection makes claims about itself." My question: Where is the statement?

In the past, a person could get fired for "being too academic."

It seems to me that any organization that charges money to learn their interpretation of the scriptures which they claim to be The Word of God is suspect.

Well, I'll just say a lot of Waysider's thoughts I've entertained, too, although I steer away from suspecting that Paul's motives were less than sincere or like a con man's. Maybe, maybe not. What does interest me, though, is the historical approach to the Scriptures that Waysider is bringing attention to in this post. I think VPW deliberately steered us away from asking these sorts of questions because he had already made up his own mind that an historical-critical approach was bad, that it meant the person thinking like this was a God rejector, etc. He repeatedly made statements like that in the PFAL class and in public meetings. Anyhow, I for one have come to accept that those letters were written for specific reasons to specific people about specific situations and not to me...

Also, I noticed in an article "Our Sufficiency is from God" on the new Way web site that they are using a translation VP never used to my knowledge, so I guess they've "changed" something in their reserach approach. It's a N.T. translation by Charles Bray Williams. Here is why he said he produced it, from the web site http://www.sprawls.org/williams/about_the_translator.htm “In these four centuries (since the death of William Tyndale, who was condemned to death for translating the New Testament into English and for seeking to put it into the hands of the plain people) scores of other translations have been made. Then why make another? someone asks. A distinguished Bible scholar answers, "Language is a fluid thing. It does not remain fixed for a day. There is therefore constant need of retranslation." Our aim in publishing this new translation is that of Tyndale, "to cause the plowboy to know the Scriptures." Our aim is to make this greatest book in the world readable and understandable by the plain people. Only three books in the New Testament are written in anything like good literary Greek–Luke, the Acts, and Hebrews. In our translation of these books we have tried to use good, smooth English. Elsewhere we use simple everyday English which reproduces the everyday Greek which the writers used. In accord with this aim we have used practical everyday words to replace many technical religious and theological terms. In other words, we have tried to use the words and phrases that are understandable by the farmer and the fisherman, by the carpenter and the cowboy, by the cobbler and the cabdriver, by the merchant and the miner, by the milkmaid and the housemistress, by the woodcutter and the trucker. If these can understand it, it is certain that the scholar, the teacher, the minister, the lawyer, the doctor, and all others can.”

Thanks for this...I hope it all fades out...people do grow up and begin to question...sometimes...

Does anyone know how much or what portions of PFAL content is carried over into their new class, The Way of Abundance and Power?

I didn't read any books or novels since they were "lies." What a crying shame...since I was an avid reader growing up. Close to the time I left TWI, I read the novel, The Word by Irving Wallace. It's a fun read...actually makes you think! What a concept... It is a far cry from "The Word" by VPW!

From OldSkool's comments: Currently at TWI - they have what they term "proven ministry research". My questions: Do they say that they have "unproven ministry research," too? Do they list anywhere the people doing "research" or their credentials? Do they publish in any journals anywhere? After 60 years of "reconstructing the original" of the Bible, have they done it yet? Do they access the databases in other organizations that track all the varients in extant manuscripts? Just asking...

IMO that should be on a post-TWI reading list. Along with 1984 by Orwell mentioned by RumRunner. There are so many parallels in both books with the TWI experience some of us had, as well as Patti Roberts' From Ashes to Gold, her memoir about being a student and singing in the choir at Oral Roberts University and later as the wife of Oral's son, their divorce, her leaving the fold, and her recreation of a life outside the "cause."

Cheers! And many happy wishes! Pen