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

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

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

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

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.

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...

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"?

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...

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.

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.

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...

I found this web site and wondered who is running it? http://www.eternallyblessed.com/music.html I recognize some of the musicians' names displayed on the Music/Audio page, but does anyone here know who is responsible for the site?

I read about this somewhere on this site before or else it is recorded in Kahler's book, The Cult That Snapped. This is insideous beyond words. Does anyone know how it was investigated/reported? What year did this happen?

Cheers! It's a beautiful day here in sunny Florida for such a day.

Ditto to this by MountaintopCO: "How could VPW have confronted those guys when he created them in his own image. He would have had to confront him self and that would have never happened. All VPW could do is criticize what he had created not the root of the cause…the creator, himself." peace, penworks

Ditto to this by shellon: "I was now able to do whatever I wanted, whatever the hell that was. But it was mine!" 1987. It felt grand to be my own "cause" from then on... peace, penworks

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.

I talked with John S. in his home near HQ the day after he was fired. He was devestated as we all were, financially left hung out to dry, like R.D., his house was being watched, etc. and he recounted some of R.D.'s part in this story which we hear now in full on GSC in this interview. The extent of VP's covert activity apparently goes back to Van Wert days. We know now that the "lockbox" intimidation technique was the way it was all kept secret. I agree with Paw that it is good to go back to these events and gain perspective. It is, however, sickening for me. VP and his trained puppets, L*M, etc. were and are sick sick sick people who've caused untold damage to hundreds of people. I feel sick thinking about all this...but thankful this interview was aired. BTW - I was able to leave hq and twi not long after R.D...but that's another story.

Very well articulated, socks! First, I'd like thank you for pointing out the following which also applies to my situation. I was in the 2nd Corps: "...not everyone in the Way Corps or Way Staff ever heard of or knew anything about any kind of doctrinally accepted stance on extra-marital sex, aka "adultery". In fact I don't think the vast majority knew about it or ever had it presented to them. When Ralph says he didn't, I believe him ...People did what they did and sometimes "mistakes" were made but I personally never heard it handled that way. So I could imagine his surprise and resistance to the idea." Second, I feel that RD's recounting of the events at HQ after the reading of PoP is a very good one. I was there. Third, take it from me, it is not an easy task to revisit that time at HQ. It is very emotional and draining and takes a toll. It's not something I enjoy doing, that's for sure! I admire his calm, step-by-step account of each part of his story. Peace, penworks

I agree with "the third trunk leader" that HQ was a "zoo" after the reading of PoP. It was a terrible, hurtful, confusing time for many people, even if they had a way of keeping themselves distanced in their minds, which I tried to do. Friends turned against friends. Family turned against family. Paranoia was rampant. I was there. I remember. penworks

rhino: "Whether it was done correctly and really added or subtracted ... I'll leave that answer to the scholars." penworks: Agree. That's where biblical studies belong - with scholars who are trained and educated in that field of literature. For people like me who are not, I then ask what those scholars' motives for doing it are, what their methods are, what their expectations are, and then I ask many other questions about the value of biblical research in modern times (and the money involved, the bible publishing industry, etc. but that's another story). But all this is just a hobby of mine... peace, penworks

I, too, am very glad this interview is available here. It provides a very important perspective and record of events that have impacted so many lives in such destructive ways. Thanks, Paw and thanks to you "third trunk leader" for posting it. cheers! penworks