penworks

Well said, George. And IMO it's quite correct that the poll question frames inerrancy as a "belief." Beliefs can often NOT be proven. Beliefs are powerful, though, as we know from our own experiences in twi. Anyhow, any good book on the history of the N.T. texts (and Hebrew Bible) describes how and when the canon was formed. It does not seem clear that inerrancy was a claim they made back then - they just figured those documents were inspired and authored by either the original apostles or disciples who were followers of the original apostles. Nor did they think the books were historically "correct" as far as I can find out. There's much scholarly doubt today that Paul wrote all the N.T. books that are ascribed to him, i.e. I and II Timothy and Titus were NOT written by him, and II Peter was not written by the apostle Peter, etc. There's a lot more of that info out there... Seems to me that inerrancy is farcical. About 20 years ago I never dreamed I'd ever think this!!!

For those who did not get this info in college (or anywhere else) but are interested in the first few centuries of "church" history, IMO here is a site worth investigating. The info on the site is in connection with a video documentary put out by Frontline on PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...religion/jesus/ From my local library, I borrowed and watched these videos. I daresay they provide a source of info on this topic that most of us did not get while in twi. Maybe there was a reason... After gaining this sort of education, some of us pause to question the claim that vpw taught the Word since it had not been known since the first century...

I did. One thing: Because she writes it in present tense, I think the snippets of conversation at the start of each chapter are a good way to show the reader the thoughts of the "present day" Kristen. The story moves along fast, except for the times I have to put it down and mourn over her ordeal for a few minutes.

Although late, I send you best wishes on your birthday. Hope it was wonderful for you. You've come a long way, lady! Cheers, penworks

For those of us who were around vpw, I think we can verify that the following info written by Dr. Sam Vaknin is a pretty good description of the way vpw (and some other twi leaders) acted much of the time. The court's findings referenced above make a distinction between belief and actions. Actions that betray the trust people put in their religious leaders are WRONG. Actions like the ones described below, IMO, are in this catagory. Regardless of what vpw or others like him have taught about the Bible, I think it's safe to say it's more than wise to avoid the company of a person who behaves in ways described below, and at the very least we should regard as suspect anything they might teach. Keep in mind that vpw's teachings and the teachings of twi at present are founded on a way of interpreting the Bible that is fabricated by Christian fundamentalists and are not the ONLY or right way to view the books of the Bible... and some of vpw's teachings IMO are downright manipulation of the scriptures, such as 4 crucified, Eli Eli, spiritual adultery, etc. etc. There are many references to these sorts of teachings here at gsc, like the article called Actual errors in PFAL, etc Info source: http://www.meadowhaven.org/psychissues/cultofnarcissist.html The Cult of the Narcissist By: Dr. Sam Vaknin Sam Vaknin ( http://samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, E-BookWeb, and Bellaonline, and as a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent. He is the the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101. The narcissist is the guru at the center of a cult. Like other gurus, he demands complete obedience from his flock: his spouse, his offspring, other family members, friends and colleagues. He feels entitled to adulation and special treatment by his followers. He punishes the wayward and the straying lambs. He enforces discipline, adherence to his teachings, and common goals. The less accomplished he is in reality – the more stringent his mastery and the more pervasive the brainwashing. The – often involuntary – members of the narcissist’s mini-cult inhabit a twilight zone of his own construction. He imposes on them a shared psychosis, replete with persecutory delusions, “enemies”, mythical narratives, and apocalyptic scenarios if he is flouted. The narcissist’s control is based on ambiguity, unpredictability, fuzziness, and ambient abuse. His ever-shifting whims exclusively define right versus wrong, desirable and unwanted, what is to be pursued and what to be avoided. He alone determines the rights and obligations of his disciples and alters them at will. The narcissist is a micro-manager. He exerts control over the minutest details and behaviors. He punishes severely and abuses withholders of information and those who fail to conform to his wishes and goals. The narcissist does not respect the boundaries and privacy of his reluctant adherents. He ignores their wishes and treats them as objects or instruments of gratification. He seeks to control both situations and people compulsively. He strongly disapproves of others’ personal autonomy and independence. Even innocuous activities, such as meeting a friend or visiting one’s family require his permission. Gradually, he isolates his nearest and dearest until they are fully dependent on him emotionally, sexually, financially, and socially. He acts in a patronizing and condescending manner and criticizes often. He alternates between emphasizing the minutest faults (devalues) and exaggerating the talents, traits and skills (idealizes) of the members of his cult. He is wildly unrealistic in his expectations – which legitimizes his subsequent abusive conduct. The narcissist claims to be infallible, superior, talented, skillful, omnipotent, and omniscient. He often lies and confabulates to support these unfounded claims. Within his cult, he expects awe, admiration, adulation, and constant attention commensurate with his outlandish stories and assertions. He reinterprets reality to fit his fantasies. His thinking is dogmatic, rigid, and doctrinaire. He does not countenance free thought, pluralism, or free speech and doesn’t brook criticism and disagreement. He demands – and often gets – complete trust and the relegation to his capable hands of all decision-making. He forced the participants in his cult to be hostile to critics, the authorities, institutions, his personal enemies, or the media – if they try to uncover his actions and reveal the truth. He closely monitors and censors information from the outside, exposing his captive audience only to selective data and analyses. The narcissist’s cult is “missionary” and “imperialistic”. He is always on the lookout for new recruits – his spouse’s friends, his daughter’s girlfriends, his neighbors, and new colleagues at work. He immediately attempts to “convert” them to his “creed” – to convince them how wonderful and admirable he is. In other words, he tries to render them Sources of Narcissistic Supply. Often, his behavior on these “recruiting missions” is different to his conduct within the “cult”. In the first phases on wooing new admirers and proselytizing to potential “conscripts” – the narcissist is attentive, compassionate, empathic, flexible, self-effacing, and helpful. At home, among the “veterans” he is tyrannical, demanding, willful, opinionated, aggressive and exploitive. As the leader of his congregation, the narcissist feels entitled to special amenities and benefits not accorded the “rank and file”. He expects to be waited on hand and foot, to make free use of everyone’s money and dispose of their assets liberally, and to be cynically exempt from the rules that he himself established (if such violation is pleasurable or gainful). In extreme cases, the narcissist feels above the law – any kind of law. This grandiose and haughty conviction leads to criminal acts, incestuous or polygamous relationships, and recurrent friction with the authorities. Hence the narcissist’s panicky and sometimes violent reactions to “dropouts” from his cult. There’s a lot going on that the narcissist wants kept under wraps. Moreover, the narcissist stabilizes his fluctuating sense of self-worth by deriving Narcissistic Supply from his victims. Abandonment threatens the narcissist’s precariously balanced personality. Add to that the narcissist’s paranoid and schizoid tendencies, his lack of introspective self-awareness, and his stunted sense of humor (lack of self-deprecation) and the risks to the grudging members of his cult are clear. The narcissist sees enemies and conspiracies everywhere. He often casts himself as the heroic victim (martyr) of dark and stupendous forces. In every deviation from his tenets he espies malevolent and ominous subversion. He, therefore, is bent on disempowering his devotees. By any and all means. The narcissist is dangerous.

Back to the thread's topic regarding this second interview... Thanks again to Paw and Kristen. I can hardly imagine how challenging it must be to "go on the record" with your story, Kristen. And as difficult as it may be for some people to stomach listening to this sad story, I think it is important to listen. It speaks to many issues surrounding how something like this happens, denial being one of the most powerful ones. As humans, when we invest our hearts in a cause we believe to be true, we want so badly for it to be true that we'll avoid considering any doubts about its value, often to our own disadvantage, or even our own destruction. Take any intro psychology class and you'll probably learn this or browse the aisle of the self-help section at Borders and you'll see dozens of books on this topic of denial, not to mention cult awareness books... BTW: Other sources of info that happend to help me leave The Way in 1987: The Way International and Victor Paul Wierwille published in 1979 by The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, written by J.L. Williams, ISBN 0-8024-9233-9. It's a little paperback of 159 pages including cult info references, notes, bibliography etc. I first found it in a used bookstore in Fort Wayne, Indiana in 1986. It helped me get out of The Way and understand some major issues, and although some of the theological points discussed are not ones I necessarily agreed with, the writer helped open my eyes to some things. In 1987, a friend recommended reading From Ashes to Gold by Patti Roberts, which tells of her experiences at Oral Roberts University (there are some similarities with The Way Corps training, etc.). She describes her disillusionment with the cause and her eventual divorce from Oral Robert's son, Richard. Although I did not (nor do now) espouse many of her religious beliefs, her understanding of the power that Oral Roberts had over her life and how the groupthink of the organization controlled her were things I could relate to first-hand. To her credit, she began questioning and stood up for herself, got out and started a new life. Needless to say, I'm surely thankful you did, too, Kristen.

Since this post, much of what Oakspear and Lindy have said pretty much reflect my feelings and thoughts, too. I have no intention [nor the power] of "shutting down the conversation." What I have to add, I feel, is just repetitive of what I've already offered. And besides, quite frankly, I'm getting tired of listening to myself I'm truly glad you've found a path for you that "works," brideofjc, and ask that you understand I need to be on my way. Let the conversation continue, ya'll! besides that...we have a family member who is near dying, so I probably won't be around here for awhile. peace

Well, thanks everyone for taking the time you have with this topic. Guess all I have left to say is that I vote for the Golden Rule... as far as a spiritual journey goes, it's clear each of us has a unique path... peace

Very interesting turns this topic takes... Just one comment [and I know it's not popular] and I give it with respect, as I trust my viewpoint will be respected, about the following belief which brideofjc shared: "While Matthew, Mark et al may have been penned by those names, the true author is the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY" Although for years I would have agreed with you, my quest for understanding of this book called the Bible has led me to the place of questioning this assumption. Many people have various understandings about what or who God is [even in the O.T. different names were used and some say they refer to different "gods"]. For me, this affects the idea of an "authorship" by God of the Bible. Surely, many of these scriptures were and are considered sacred to some people, obviously. There are also many other "scriptures" belonging to other cultures that are sacred to them, too. Where is the "right" one, which is the "right" God? I have honestly asked myself this question for the past 20 years since leaving twi and I can say it's not easy to even present it here because of the "heretical" stigma it carries. But some of us really, deeply are concerned about this subject and the implications of it we see in the world around us. I welcome conversation about it. IMO, humankind has tried to relate to the unseen power around it since developing consciousness and has come up with various ways. May I be so bold as to suggest reading something like A History of God for further enlightenment for those interested? From what I know, when monotheism developed, it ruled out other ideas of God, at least this seems to have happened in the area of the world we know of as the Near East today. Monotheism is one way of relating to the creative universe. There are other ways, too, just as good and productive, and creative and loving... just a few thoughts...now I need to get back to yard work...how mundane... <_<

Hi everyone, First, Lindy, I love what you said, "A light in total darkened emptiness doesn't illuminate anything. There needs to be something there to absorb and reflect it." Gonna think about that one for while. Sometimes your writing is very poetic... Anyhow, getting back to the first question about how "scripture" was taught in twi to mean the Bible (KJV canon) Here's just a bit of info about where this idea came from: that the scriptures, i.e. the Bible, is The Word of God and the "only rule of faith and practice" (as pointed out by a post in this thread by DontWorryBeHappy) . I realize vpw credited Rosalind Rinker as the person who influenced him to believe this, but this idea has a long history starting pretty much with Luther's 95 thesis, the first item on his list pitted the authority of the Bible against tradition found in the Catholic Church [not a bad idea, but he became extreme about it IMO]. Some of you may know how vpw loved Luther. Luther claimed that no church tradition could claim divine sanction unless it was supported by scripture. So he decided scripture (which version? which translation?) was the only godly authority over our lives. This set in motion a wild chain of events... "In his public debate in Leipzig with Johann Eck, theology professor at Ingolstadt (1519), Luther made his controversial new doctrine sola scripture ('scripture alone') explicit for the first time. How could Luther understand the Bible, Eck asked, without the popes, councils and universities? Luther replied: 'A simple layman armed with scripture is to be believed above a pople or council without it.' This was an unprecendented claim. Jews and Christians had always upheld the sacred importance of inherited tradition." The Bible - A Biography by Karen Armstrong, pg. 165. IMO, its good idea to question tradition; however, this stance, because of ignorance of so many things about the Bible, has led to all the conflicting interpretations, sects, denominations, and yes - cults - in the world, and caused monstrous bloodshed, bigotry, mark and avoid tactics, hateful speech, bad behavior, etc. you name it, promulgated by people who believe they are "right" in their interpretation and application of scripture in our modern world. Read about Luther and his life; you may begin to question his ideas, ideas which some of us inherited from twi. I've cited Armstrong's work here before. But any history of the Bible could provide this same information. What I like about her book is that it is so concise . It's a very easy read. Read a few pages on your lunch hour. It is only 229 pages. The are extensive notes with other works cited that you can read, too, if you're interested. Publishers Weekly wrote: "...Armstrong not only describes how, when, and by whom the Bible was written, she also examines some two thousand years of biblical interpretation by rabbis and bishops, scholars and mystics, pietists and critics, thus opening up a myriad of exegetical [exegesis is the interpretation and understanding of a text on the basis of the text itself] approaches and dispelling any fundamentalist notion that only one view can be correct." Also, Wide as the Waters - the History of the English Bible and the Revolution it Inspired by historian Benson Bobrick is great. It blew my mind! I saw how some of us have not only repeated the gross mistakes of others because of our ignorance but also out of our deliberate narrow-mindedness. I'm on a campaign (can you tell ) to stamp out ignorance of the history of this text. It has influenced our lives in such profound ways - some good, some bad. The Golden Rule, as many have suggested, can help us get past old forms of narrow thinking about how we treat others; that "rule" may be the only hope we have of surviving in this crazy world. Okay, enough from the book nerd...

GSC for me is a place to learn from other people and, as a result, clarify my thinking a bit more about my twi experience. Sometimes, it's a place to share some of my twi experience when I feel it'll help. It's a place where I can offer info that'll throw light on some topics of interest. It's also a place where, in doing these things, I believe I can extend some compassion and understanding to others sometimes...hey what can I say? I once was a girl scout I think they brainwashed me It's a tall order, for sure...but hey, shoot for the stars and you might hit the fence. I confess - I often have trouble with the "respect authority" item... Here's what I found on the web: The Girl Scout Promise On my honor, I will try: To serve God* and my country, To help people at all times, And to live by the Girl Scout Law. The Girl Scout Law I will do my best to be honest and fair, friendly and helpful, considerate and caring, courageous and strong, and responsible for what I say and do, and to respect myself and others, respect authority, use resources wisely, make the world a better place, and be a sister to every Girl Scout. * The word "God" can be interpreted in a number of ways, depending on one's spiritual beliefs. When reciting the Girl Scout Promise, it is okay to replace the word "God" with whatever word your spiritual beliefs dictate.

Indeed, patience is sorely lacking nowadays when it comes to Bible topics, I've found. In response to this thread's title, Wierwille's *research* I can add a few comments, which I've posted elsewhere on gsc, but they may shed some light for readers of this thread, also. A common sentiment of many former twi followers seems to be "too bad twi turned sour, it could've been so great," or similar wishes. I felt that myself for a little while [very little] back in 84-86 when I was struggling. It was not easy to face my dream's disintegration. The assumptions on which vpw built his ministry were not clear or understandable to me when I first took PFAL as a teenager. And I wasn't aware of what questions to ask, etc. Years later, I came to understand the system was a closed one from the beginning. He based his ministry on the "truth" that the Bible was perfect and it was God's Word from Genesis to Revelation. He said he threw out all his textbooks (probably including textual criticism, etc.) and decided Rosalind Rinker had the truth: that The Bible was the Word of God, and the Word of God was the Will of God. Info on her is available on the Internet. IMO the religious context of a group like twi is part Fundamentalism and part Evangelicalism, neither of which leaves much wiggle room for questions like we've been asking over in the post, "what does 'scripture' refer to." In general, the questions there are in the catagory of what's known as textual and historical criticism which is NOT encouraged in twi or similar groups. Why? Those questions seem to undercut the assumptions that the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, has to be perfect, without contradictions, historically accurate, etc. etc. and be 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, but that's just me. When I got involved (during the dinosaur era of 1970 ) this ministry promoted itself as one devoted to biblical research. The people who witnessed to me claimed that if "we" learned more, we would teach it, that if "we" discovered that "we" were wrong in something we already had taught, we could change as "we" learned new things in research. Sounded good to me. I think vp tried this approach back in Van Wert when he first left the organized church but after the PFAL class was recorded, changing anything in it would have been pretty hard. Even now, although the current twi group no longer runs this original class, I've heard that the teachings are very similar, and the same is pretty much true for some of the twi "offshoot ministries" as they are called. I could be wrong, but that's what I've seen so far on their web sites. Anyway, some folks seem to like the framework of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, but some of us eventually realized that wasn't for us. The sad part for me was that in the end, it became clear that twi had an agenda different than those words I initially heard long ago [not to mention that I discovered how some of the teachings were copied from other people, etc. even though they were claimed to be original twi teachings.] The Word over the World was the goal, and to my understanding that came to be defined as letting everyone in the world say yes or no to The Word that twi taught. The "accuracy of the Word" was for the most part defined in the PFAL class and other twi teachings. Perhaps this sheds some light on the topic of this thread... Life is short. Follow your bliss, as Joseph Campbell would say. I'm going to do some more gardening while the weather is lovely.

A bit on this topic from Karen Armstrong's The Bible, a Biography pg 41: "[Daniel] was particularly preoccupied by Jeremiah's prediction of the number of years that must pass 'before the successive devastations of Jerusalem would come to an end, namely seventy years.' [refer to Jeremiah 25:11-12 and Daniel 9:3]. The second-century [bCE] author [Daniel] was clearly not interested in the original meaning of the text: Jeremiah had obviously prophesied, in a round figure, the length of the Babylonian exile. He [Daniel] wanted to find an entirely new significance in the ancient oracle that would bring comfort to the Jews who were anxiously awaiting the outcome of the Maccabean wars. This would become typical of Jewish exegesis. Instead of looking back to uncover its historical meaning, the interpreter would make the text speak to the present and the future." ex-twi folks: Does that last line sound familiar? ~ Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. ~ George Santayana ~ Those who are not curious about the past are never enlightened by it ~ penworks :unsure:

Mmm...this thread has taken several interesting turns! It's fun to see the thinking going on. Yesterday I attended a graduation at which the commencement speaker encouraged the graduates to continue...are you ready?...READING. It seems to be a lost art. I do feel it is an art....an art of the inquisitive mind. A friend of mine sent me the link below to a site with textual info and stuff on topics we've been discussing here. For the past 20 years, he's conducted group discussions at his "sunday school" about these topics and found these tapes helpful. Granted, they cost something, but then, doesn't everything? For free, you read the summaries of the tapes' contents and see what scholar or author is on the tape. Some of them have books you can check out in the library. Visit www.Teach12.com. On the left, click "Religion" and you'll see a list of topics pertinent to this thread. See you 'round the forums!

Welcome to the gsc, Ghost, where there's lots of people with lots of ideas, jokes, and well...just plain common sense. Enjoy!

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

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!

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...

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!

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!

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 No need to take that personally. peace, penworks