In my opinion, they were searching for texts or versions that backed up their pre-conceived doctrines. Walter Cummins spent some time in Germany examining manuscripts, but as I remember, he and VP had determined that there must be a text somewhere that reads such-and-such because that's what would fit.
I've wondered this as well. If TWI is really a biblical "research and teaching" ministry, then, to me, it would follow that there would be genuine, scholarly research that is not backed by any preconceived doctrinal notions. Or if there are certain doctrinal notions, those notions would have a historical basis and would not be a conglomeration of doctrine from various different religious denominations and sects.
TWI claims to be able to help people better understand the Bible. If there were a college class that claimed to be able to help better understand the Bible (I'm sure there is), it would be about history, archeology, critical examination of religious beliefs and stories, examining the dating and authorship of the text, of the cities where events happened, battles, everything...but TWI focused on applying the Bible to the lives of TWI followers, gave their own spin on certain passages, and really pushed certain doctrinal viewpoints. These are not what make true unbiased research.
So...what exactly were they looking for? The search for authenticity to support their notions, the class offered as a way to better understand scripture...I think it was all just something to sell to people to get money.
When Wayne Cl*pp was there as the research guy, there was a very small area for him to operate. I don't know what was in there place, but I don't think it would impress anyone who really is in to research.
They sure talked like they had a trunk full of scrolls out in the garage didn't they?
I imagine for the most part they used the interlinears that were available on the market and that were sold in the bookstore, the Berry's and the Nestle's being the two that I saw, in conjunction with the various concordances and lexicons.
Wierwille often referred to "the original" even though he taught in PFAL that there weren't any originals, and would assert that the "original" had to have said such-and-such because he had already painted himself into a doctrinal corner.
Half the time it didn't matter if a Greek or Hebrew word's translation didn't fit TWI theology, Wierwille, and later Martindale, would just decree that the word meant something different than what every source said it meant.
I remember that staple of TWI teaching, continued in Martindale's class, that the first word of "the original" was "God". Well, I don't think there's anyone who seriously thinks that any language other than Hebrew was the original language of Genesis, and every Hebrew version of Genesis that I've ever seen or heard of has the first word in Genesis as beresheeth, "in the beginning"; the second word is barah, created, and the third is elohim, God. Simple research, easy to check, yet it still is repeated in TWI as if it's a self-evident fact. Research? Hah!
They sure talked like they had a trunk full of scrolls out in the garage didn't they?
I imagine for the most part they used the interlinears that were available on the market and that were sold in the bookstore, the Berry's and the Nestle's being the two that I saw, in conjunction with the various concordances and lexicons.
Wierwille often referred to "the original" even though he taught in PFAL that there weren't any originals, and would assert that the "original" had to have said such-and-such because he had already painted himself into a doctrinal corner.
Half the time it didn't matter if a Greek or Hebrew word's translation didn't fit TWI theology, Wierwille, and later Martindale, would just decree that the word meant something different than what every source said it meant.
I remember that staple of TWI teaching, continued in Martindale's class, that the first word of "the original" was "God". Well, I don't think there's anyone who seriously thinks that any language other than Hebrew was the original language of Genesis, and every Hebrew version of Genesis that I've ever seen or heard of has the first word in Genesis as beresheeth, "in the beginning"; the second word is barah, created, and the third is elohim, God. Simple research, easy to check, yet it still is repeated in TWI as if it's a self-evident fact. Research? Hah!
TWI's research seems to be highly misplaced. If Wierwille really wanted to know about what the Bible teaches, why didn't he look into what the early Christians and the Jews of the Old Testament believed? That would give him an answer as to what a lot it means, rather than just interpreting a few words this way or that way, and changing another word here, etc.
They sure talked like they had a trunk full of scrolls out in the garage didn't they?
They sure did Oak...and all that coming from a guy who simply stole other people's work and passed it off as his own "research"...Vic loved playing the role of the great scholar...I think the only thing he ever "researched" were all the cute young girls walking around.
One of the things I found intriguing about TWI was its (supposed) slant on research. I've never seen the TWI research library, so I would be interested in what exactly was in the library.
Well, this is a huge can of worms. Many topics here at gsc already have been written on this, so I'm sure you can do a search and find them. Since I worked on the Research Team at HQ from 1984 - 1986, I'll just add a few notes here in bold:
In the research library were some of vpw' old books, both what he read and what he published, various concordances, Greek texts, and books on O.T. history, archaeology etc. The ironic thing is that most of the time the research library went unused by the Way Corps, at least while I was there, and the research team was kept so busy on projects that they only focused on their area of responsibility. In the Rare Book Room there were also some microfilms of Aramaic manuscripts from the British Museum, etc. I've read somewhere lately that there was a copy of J.E. Stiles book on the Holy Spirit which vpw copied extensively from, although I never noticed it there...I was too "busy." Geez...
Did researchers go and visit libraries that contained some of the ancient texts?
Walt#r Cummins, the head of research, was sent to Germany at least once (I think twice) to look at Greek manuscripts in an attempt to discover variants in Greek texts that would back up what vpw believed had to "be the original" according to his own "scope of the Word." Also, one team member went to the Near East to search Syriac texts.
Were different texts used for comparative purposes when arriving at conclusions, or did they simply study texts that were bought for purposes of research?
During 1984-1986 when I was on the team, there were members of the team trained in Greek and Syriac who had been educated at the University of Chicago (I was not one of them, I was merely helping with the Aramaic concordance). 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. These sources, as well as info about customs and biblical archaeology, etc. were drawn from when putting together the "Literal translations according to usage" under the direction of Wal#er Cummins, the head of Research at the time. These literals were taught to the Way Corps on Corps night each week.
Here is one of the premises that I wonder about:
The Bible is inerrant because it is the Word of God, therefore any inconsistencies can be explained by errors in translation or transmission.
That is the typical approach of Bible fundamentalists who argue for inerrancy.
What I saw happen in TWI was the Bible being given an extreme makeover to satisfy the above premise, which included the genealogy sections, 5 crucified, how many times the cock crowed, and most of the events leading up to the crucifixion, the crucifixion, the burial, and the resurrection; namely because not one of these accounts in the 4 gospels agree (completely) with the others.
..."the Bible being given an extreme makeover"... IMO, this is the understatement of the century.
...included the genealogy sections, 5 crucified, how many times the cock crowed, and most of the events leading up to the crucifixion, the crucifixion, the burial, and the resurrection;
And there are reasons for this...vpw used the works of E.W. Bullinger, etc. as the basis of his theology. Note: You probably know this, but the gospels were written by different people, at different times, with different interpretations of who/what JC was. Scholars agree that Mark was used as a source for Matthew and Luke. John was written last. A good source for info on the first century mess that is called Christianity, and on the history of the texts that were put together and called The Bible, is Bart Ehrman who has written extensively on this topic.
While it was obvious (mostly after the fact) that no real research was going on, what were the researchers actually doing?
Well, I can tell you this from my own observations and experience that from 1984 - 86 research projects included:
1) doing the research for the Bible Lands Tour which launched in October 1985.
2) collaborating as a team with Walt@r Cummins to produce "literal translations according to usage" of scriptures that were taught to the Way Corps
3) advising in-resident Way Corps members on the research papers they had to produce in order to graduate
4) producing the Aramaic (Syriac) concordance and interlinear, which had gone on for many many many years
5) answering letters from people "on the field" who had questions about research, some of which were published in the Way Magazine
6) writing articles for the Way Magazine in the biblical research section called GMIR (that word is the transliteration of the Syriac letters for the word meaning "to perfect, accomplish, complete' arithmetically to be divisible without any remainder." This was to support vpw's idea that the scripture could be "rightly divided" and fit with a "mathmatical exactness and scientific precision."
7) those with college degrees taught research classes on various topics at the College of Emporia, Indiana Campus, and to the in-rez Corps at HQ in Ohio.
8) and dealing with a myriad of other things that led me to resign in 1986.
I have been reading Bart Ehrman's works for a couple of years, and have been listening to his lectures. I have to say that I find little to disagree with him about, which has messed with my faith considerably. My faith was based largely on logic and facts that I found in TWI. Now that I've stepped outside the premises, I struggle with the lack of either in the face of historical evidence when combined with the largely dishonest approach to scripture that TWI embraced.
Now I understand why ignorance is bliss and why Christians are told to avoid certain things.
I have been reading Bart Ehrman's works for a couple of years, and have been listening to his lectures. I have to say that I find little to disagree with him about, which has messed with my faith considerably. My faith was based largely on logic and facts that I found in TWI. Now that I've stepped outside the premises, I struggle with the lack of either in the face of historical evidence when combined with the largely dishonest approach to scripture that TWI embraced.
Now I understand why ignorance is bliss and why Christians are told to avoid certain things.
My advice would be to balance Bart Ehrman's writing with that of others who may not agree with him. There are scholars (such as Ehrman) who are liberal enough to not be swayed by "orthodox" views, but they tend to go too far in that direction. On the other hand, evangelical scholars, while they may be too inclined to try to support "established" doctrines like the Trinity, nevertheless have done quite a bit of worthwhile work establishing the trustworthiness of the scriptures, among other things. Sean Finnegan (Vince's son) has written an excellent paper on finding this balance. You can click here to read it.
One particular quote from it that is relevant is this:
First, it is imperative to determine if the New
Testament documents have been reliably
transmitted for the last twenty centuries.
Opinions on this matter vary greatly even though
the facts are indisputable. Bart Ehrman, author
of the New York Times bestseller, Misquoting
Jesus, takes up the pessimistic position arguing
that the documents are not very reliable.
“Scholars differ significantly in
their estimates—some say there are
200,000 variants known, some say
300,000, some say 400,000 or more!
We do not know for sure because,
despite impressive developments in
computer technology, no one has yet
been able to count them all.
Perhaps, as I indicated earlier, it
is best simply to leave the matter
in comparative terms. There are
more variations among our
manuscripts than there are words in
the New Testament.”
Yet, in the rebuttal book, Misquoting Truth,
Timothy Paul Jones persuasively argues that
these 400,000 differences between manuscripts
have very little significance for three reasons.
“(1) First, the vast majority of
the changes in the New Testament
document are not even noticeable
when the text is translated into
other languages. (2) What’s more,
it’s almost always possible—through
a discipline known as textual
criticism—to compare manuscripts
and to discover where and when
changes were made. (3) Perhaps
most important, the copyists were
more concerned with preserving the
words of Scripture than with
promoting their own theological
agendas.”
Between the 5,700 handwritten Greek
manuscripts extant today, there is remarkable
agreement. But, what are these variations
between them? “The vast majority of changes
that were introduced involved variant spellings,
the accidental omission or repetition of a single
letter, the substitution of one word for a
synonym, and the like.”
[footnote: Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus of Nazareth: How
Historians Can Know Him and Why it Matters, p. 24,
published by Christ on Campus Initiative, 2008.]
So don't limit yourself to Ehrman, but balance him with Timothy P. Jones, Craig L. Blomberg, and others (who are also quoted in Sean's paper). Even Josh McDowell, despite being a Trinitarian, makes a good case for the reliability of the Scriptures.
I dunno.. maybe it's an immature spirituality that demands to be RIGHT.. to have a mathmatically exact and scientifically precise wordagawd..
I think some never grow out of spiritual adolescence.
maybe that's why not much "spiritual" happened in the old ministry.. when it did, we'd just analyze it to death..
Perhaps spiritual immaturity is not the desire to be right, but rather the claim that one IS right while everyone else is wrong. I think we should all strive for the truth, but not be so convinced that we have it that we don't even consider what someone else is saying.
I have been reading Bart Ehrman's works for a couple of years, and have been listening to his lectures. I have to say that I find little to disagree with him about, which has messed with my faith considerably. My faith was based largely on logic and facts that I found in TWI. Now that I've stepped outside the premises, I struggle with the lack of either in the face of historical evidence when combined with the largely dishonest approach to scripture that TWI embraced.
Now I understand why ignorance is bliss and why Christians are told to avoid certain things.
I would argue that ignorance is NOT bliss...ignorance has only hindered me in being a more fulfilled person or one who could better weigh options before making informed decisions. But I'm an obsessed reader and knowledge junkie so take what I say with a grain of salt.
Perhaps this will shed some light, although I can only speak for myself here...For me, reading about the history of Bible texts or any other texts considered sacred in the world is separate from what I feel is an internal spiritual life. I have come to the place that spirituality or "faith" in an unseen creator does not have to depend on knowledge from a book, any book, including the Hebrew scriptures or the diverse collection of documents in the N.T. or the Koran or any Buddhist writings or Shakespeare for that matter. If it did, we'd be in the soup.
Why? We don't have any originals and even if we did, what we'd have are originals of the Hebrew people's mythology (that is not a derogatory term) and the originals of letters in the N.T. to specific groups of people who understood them in a different context and culture than the one we live in. The events surrounding why they were written are long lost to us. In addition, they were understood by people with a world view vastly different than ours (one small example is that they thought the earth was flat) and so their meaning is not necessarily one we would relate to. But that's another huge topic...
For me, the more I explored different religions, the clearer it became that generally people from all cultures throughout time have been using religion as a way to express their understanding of a Creator, to record their perceptions of it, and not to define it accurately or know it completely (well, maybe Paul thought he was doing that but I'm not sure about his agenda). It's the extremists that have made the problems, made the US vs. THEM a problematic attitude about one's religion.
Karen Armstrong is a wonderful writer on this topic. Check out her work on Amazon, especially The Battle for God - The History of Fundamentalism.
So is Joseph Campbell, author of The Power of Myth. Of course, they are not writing from a "Christian" point of view, but from an historian's point of view, just as Bart Ehrman is doing about the history of N.T. texts - and where and how the canon was decided upon. But perhaps this post does not fit into this thread. If a person wants to stick with the Christian frame of reference, which includes that the Bible is God's Word and there's no other way to know Him (or It) than from the Bible and through Jesus Christ, then reading theologically-based works by Christians would be of more interest...
It seems to me that most religions are all pointing to the same star but from different directions. For me, it became important to understand how and why I came to take the Bible as the authority over anything else such as other religious writings, and more importantly, over what I knew was right inside myself.
In this process spanning 20 years since leaving twi, I feel I've gained a more appropriate view about the Bible and so appreciate it differently than I did while in twi. But I'm no scholar or expert. And I'm sure enjoying the journey post-twi.
I have been reading Bart Ehrman's works for a couple of years, and have been listening to his lectures. I have to say that I find little to disagree with him about, which has messed with my faith considerably. My faith was based largely on logic and facts that I found in TWI. Now that I've stepped outside the premises, I struggle with the lack of either in the face of historical evidence when combined with the largely dishonest approach to scripture that TWI embraced.
Now I understand why ignorance is bliss and why Christians are told to avoid certain things.
I haven't read Ehrman ... but have stepped outside that bible box long ago ...
It seems this is part of the definition of a grease spot, if you leave the Bible thang
... perhaps the logical conclusion of any bible believing faith is something TWI like ... absolute adherence to "the Bible". But most live lives of quiet perspiration ... they just work away and go to church and feel superior in their little Bible world.
So very many still "cling" to the Bible ... even if they left TWI. I'm not sure even now how to address people that are proud they left TWI, but have stuck to their splinter or even their strict Bible belief. Penworks seems to have done some continuing education research and has been brave enough to move beyond "the word of gawd is the will of gawd". Thank gawd. :)
I don't think that leaves only hedonism or a "grease spot" existence ... and I actually feel the true grease splotters are those that are limited in their belief to the grease spotted writings in their king James bibble ... perhaps with a myraid of notes from Bullinger or LCM slobberings.
If we drop the premiss that there ever was a perfect written word, where do we start? We DO exist ... and there does seem to be good and evil, or at least better and worse ... but where ARE we?
Stepping outside the pure bible stuff makes looking at things like the US constitution more interesting. We know who those men were and what they wrote and what they were trying to achieve. They came out of some societal advancements ... and were looking to move forward ...
"we hold these truths to be self evident" ... that is an interesting starting point maybe ... not exactly a premiss I guess ...
... perhaps the logical conclusion of any bible believing faith is something TWI-like ... absolute adherence to "the Bible"...
That would only be true if TWI had actually adhered to the Bible. But those of us who have left TWI but not the Bible have found that "real" Biblical research is so far from what TWI did that it's not even comparable.
in my opinion, my research paper NEVER should have passed muster
Excie,
Care to elaborate on that?
(I wonder how many other Corps grads feel that way about their research papers.)
"The Bible is inerrant because it is the Word of God, therefore any inconsistencies can be explained by errors in translation or transmission.
That is the typical approach of Bible fundamentalists who argue for inerrancy."
So much has to be assumed to even get off first base with the statement "the bible is inerrant because it is the Word of God"...The Way's approach - typical - is that the effort to resolve inconsistencies is a worthy endeavor - establishing the correct "Word of God". But there's an element of faith to the effort, to get off the dime - that the bible is in fact the Word of God, to begin with.
So let's say the bible is the Word of God. We know the net result of what we have today is far from perfect. So the effort goes into resolving inconsistencies. "Errors". Stuff that doesn't make sense or by comparison to other information doesn't appear to be right. That's inconsistent with a God who's perfect and who would only produce perfect work. Something must be wrong, so some work has to be done to determine what God was trying to "say" to begin with, to the people that He communed with who were led, inspired, to write those things down.
But back up a minute baby. We're already knee deep in a kettle of fish.
There is next to nothing, little, diddly squatros, that we can see that's been produced by God that's even close to being "perfect". Not to say that some things aren't pretty dammed good. But what's "perfect" anyway? What does that mean?
God's perfect - God expresses Himself, so the outcomes are perfect - okay. So what's going on, that we seem to manage to screw everything up? Things definitely get screwed up, if God's work has to fulfill the criteria of being "perfect".
Not to mention that once things are screwed up, they have to be restored to perfect-state to be fully understood and appreciated.
Don't know if this makes sense, but for a long time now, the concept of the bible meeting the criteria of being "perfect" and completely right and accurate, word for word and from every possible angle - just seems kind of...unusual.
As a whole, the universe we are slowly learnin about is wondrous, beautiful, powerful, inspiring, sometimes outright scarey...but is it "perfect" and completely free of inconsistencies?
I think there may be a case to make that to insist that the bible be brought to a state of complete "accuracy" by human perception may be completely abnormal and unrealistic.
Not to say that God isn't. But from out of the "mouth" of God breathes...life. The Word. The Logos. It may be that we're better served by being motivated and inspired to put our ears to His lips, bringing what we can to the conversation and the wisdom of those who have come before and Heard that Voice - and go for it.
I think there may be a case to make that to insist that the bible be brought to a state of complete "accuracy" by human perception may be completely abnormal and unrealistic.
"The Bible is inerrant because it is the Word of God, therefore any inconsistencies can be explained by errors in translation or transmission.
That is the typical approach of Bible fundamentalists who argue for inerrancy."
So much has to be assumed to even get off first base with the statement "the bible is inerrant because it is the Word of God"...The Way's approach - typical - is that the effort to resolve inconsistencies is a worthy endeavor - establishing the correct "Word of God". But there's an element of faith to the effort, to get off the dime - that the bible is in fact the Word of God, to begin with.
So let's say the bible is the Word of God. We know the net result of what we have today is far from perfect. So the effort goes into resolving inconsistencies. "Errors". Stuff that doesn't make sense or by comparison to other information doesn't appear to be right. That's inconsistent with a God who's perfect and who would only produce perfect work. Something must be wrong, so some work has to be done to determine what God was trying to "say" to begin with, to the people that He communed with who were led, inspired, to write those things down.
But back up a minute baby. We're already knee deep in a kettle of fish.
There is next to nothing, little, diddly squatros, that we can see that's been produced by God that's even close to being "perfect". Not to say that some things aren't pretty dammed good. But what's "perfect" anyway? What does that mean?
God's perfect - God expresses Himself, so the outcomes are perfect - okay. So what's going on, that we seem to manage to screw everything up? Things definitely get screwed up, if God's work has to fulfill the criteria of being "perfect".
Not to mention that once things are screwed up, they have to be restored to perfect-state to be fully understood and appreciated.
Don't know if this makes sense, but for a long time now, the concept of the bible meeting the criteria of being "perfect" and completely right and accurate, word for word and from every possible angle - just seems kind of...unusual.
As a whole, the universe we are slowly learnin about is wondrous, beautiful, powerful, inspiring, sometimes outright scarey...but is it "perfect" and completely free of inconsistencies?
I think there may be a case to make that to insist that the bible be brought to a state of complete "accuracy" by human perception may be completely abnormal and unrealistic.
Not to say that God isn't. But from out of the "mouth" of God breathes...life. The Word. The Logos. It may be that we're better served by being motivated and inspired to put our ears to His lips, bringing what we can to the conversation and the wisdom of those who have come before and Heard that Voice - and go for it.
As I read this post, it made me wonder...
Has anyone inside or outside of TWI ever considered that the problem with biblical inerrancy lies not in the problematic explanations of inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies, but rather in the concept of Sola Scriptura itself?
Recommended Posts
Mark Clarke
In my opinion, they were searching for texts or versions that backed up their pre-conceived doctrines. Walter Cummins spent some time in Germany examining manuscripts, but as I remember, he and VP had determined that there must be a text somewhere that reads such-and-such because that's what would fit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brushstroke
I've wondered this as well. If TWI is really a biblical "research and teaching" ministry, then, to me, it would follow that there would be genuine, scholarly research that is not backed by any preconceived doctrinal notions. Or if there are certain doctrinal notions, those notions would have a historical basis and would not be a conglomeration of doctrine from various different religious denominations and sects.
TWI claims to be able to help people better understand the Bible. If there were a college class that claimed to be able to help better understand the Bible (I'm sure there is), it would be about history, archeology, critical examination of religious beliefs and stories, examining the dating and authorship of the text, of the cities where events happened, battles, everything...but TWI focused on applying the Bible to the lives of TWI followers, gave their own spin on certain passages, and really pushed certain doctrinal viewpoints. These are not what make true unbiased research.
So...what exactly were they looking for? The search for authenticity to support their notions, the class offered as a way to better understand scripture...I think it was all just something to sell to people to get money.
~Phil
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
BINGO!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
When Wayne Cl*pp was there as the research guy, there was a very small area for him to operate. I don't know what was in there place, but I don't think it would impress anyone who really is in to research.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
They sure talked like they had a trunk full of scrolls out in the garage didn't they?
I imagine for the most part they used the interlinears that were available on the market and that were sold in the bookstore, the Berry's and the Nestle's being the two that I saw, in conjunction with the various concordances and lexicons.
Wierwille often referred to "the original" even though he taught in PFAL that there weren't any originals, and would assert that the "original" had to have said such-and-such because he had already painted himself into a doctrinal corner.
Half the time it didn't matter if a Greek or Hebrew word's translation didn't fit TWI theology, Wierwille, and later Martindale, would just decree that the word meant something different than what every source said it meant.
I remember that staple of TWI teaching, continued in Martindale's class, that the first word of "the original" was "God". Well, I don't think there's anyone who seriously thinks that any language other than Hebrew was the original language of Genesis, and every Hebrew version of Genesis that I've ever seen or heard of has the first word in Genesis as beresheeth, "in the beginning"; the second word is barah, created, and the third is elohim, God. Simple research, easy to check, yet it still is repeated in TWI as if it's a self-evident fact. Research? Hah!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brushstroke
TWI's research seems to be highly misplaced. If Wierwille really wanted to know about what the Bible teaches, why didn't he look into what the early Christians and the Jews of the Old Testament believed? That would give him an answer as to what a lot it means, rather than just interpreting a few words this way or that way, and changing another word here, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Wasn't there a photo here at one time of the TWI Research Library?
I can't seem to find it now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
They sure did Oak...and all that coming from a guy who simply stole other people's work and passed it off as his own "research"...Vic loved playing the role of the great scholar...I think the only thing he ever "researched" were all the cute young girls walking around.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
The old huckster,did not try to suceed in any field,he glammed on to some men who did research,and he put his name on it.
Was he sucessful then?Not till the 60s when the hippies did it for him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
Where's Research Geek? He has some great stooreees....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I have been reading Bart Ehrman's works for a couple of years, and have been listening to his lectures. I have to say that I find little to disagree with him about, which has messed with my faith considerably. My faith was based largely on logic and facts that I found in TWI. Now that I've stepped outside the premises, I struggle with the lack of either in the face of historical evidence when combined with the largely dishonest approach to scripture that TWI embraced.
Now I understand why ignorance is bliss and why Christians are told to avoid certain things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno.. maybe it's an immature spirituality that demands to be RIGHT.. to have a mathmatically exact and scientifically precise wordagawd..
I think some never grow out of spiritual adolescence.
maybe that's why not much "spiritual" happened in the old ministry.. when it did, we'd just analyze it to death..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
My advice would be to balance Bart Ehrman's writing with that of others who may not agree with him. There are scholars (such as Ehrman) who are liberal enough to not be swayed by "orthodox" views, but they tend to go too far in that direction. On the other hand, evangelical scholars, while they may be too inclined to try to support "established" doctrines like the Trinity, nevertheless have done quite a bit of worthwhile work establishing the trustworthiness of the scriptures, among other things. Sean Finnegan (Vince's son) has written an excellent paper on finding this balance. You can click here to read it.
One particular quote from it that is relevant is this:
So don't limit yourself to Ehrman, but balance him with Timothy P. Jones, Craig L. Blomberg, and others (who are also quoted in Sean's paper). Even Josh McDowell, despite being a Trinitarian, makes a good case for the reliability of the Scriptures.
Perhaps spiritual immaturity is not the desire to be right, but rather the claim that one IS right while everyone else is wrong. I think we should all strive for the truth, but not be so convinced that we have it that we don't even consider what someone else is saying.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
I would argue that ignorance is NOT bliss...ignorance has only hindered me in being a more fulfilled person or one who could better weigh options before making informed decisions. But I'm an obsessed reader and knowledge junkie so take what I say with a grain of salt.
Perhaps this will shed some light, although I can only speak for myself here...For me, reading about the history of Bible texts or any other texts considered sacred in the world is separate from what I feel is an internal spiritual life. I have come to the place that spirituality or "faith" in an unseen creator does not have to depend on knowledge from a book, any book, including the Hebrew scriptures or the diverse collection of documents in the N.T. or the Koran or any Buddhist writings or Shakespeare for that matter.
If it did, we'd be in the soup.
Why? We don't have any originals and even if we did, what we'd have are originals of the Hebrew people's mythology (that is not a derogatory term) and the originals of letters in the N.T. to specific groups of people who understood them in a different context and culture than the one we live in. The events surrounding why they were written are long lost to us. In addition, they were understood by people with a world view vastly different than ours (one small example is that they thought the earth was flat) and so their meaning is not necessarily one we would relate to. But that's another huge topic...
For me, the more I explored different religions, the clearer it became that generally people from all cultures throughout time have been using religion as a way to express their understanding of a Creator, to record their perceptions of it, and not to define it accurately or know it completely (well, maybe Paul thought he was doing that but I'm not sure about his agenda). It's the extremists that have made the problems, made the US vs. THEM a problematic attitude about one's religion.
Karen Armstrong is a wonderful writer on this topic. Check out her work on Amazon, especially The Battle for God - The History of Fundamentalism.
So is Joseph Campbell, author of The Power of Myth. Of course, they are not writing from a "Christian" point of view, but from an historian's point of view, just as Bart Ehrman is doing about the history of N.T. texts - and where and how the canon was decided upon. But perhaps this post does not fit into this thread. If a person wants to stick with the Christian frame of reference, which includes that the Bible is God's Word and there's no other way to know Him (or It) than from the Bible and through Jesus Christ, then reading theologically-based works by Christians would be of more interest...
It seems to me that most religions are all pointing to the same star but from different directions. For me, it became important to understand how and why I came to take the Bible as the authority over anything else such as other religious writings, and more importantly, over what I knew was right inside myself.
In this process spanning 20 years since leaving twi, I feel I've gained a more appropriate view about the Bible and so appreciate it differently than I did while in twi. But I'm no scholar or expert. And I'm sure enjoying the journey post-twi.
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
:huh:
Wow! Oh, Wow!!
Amazing post, Penworks!!
That about sums up what I've been through and the conclusion I've come to.
Thank you!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I find there's a certain fundamental DISHONESTY in how these variants are counted.
For example, if 500 texts render a certain word, and 100 texts render it different in one letter,
that's not counted as ONE "variation", but as ONE HUNDRED "variations!"
If one takes a book that is NOT meant to be approached like a 21st century textbook,
and approaches it with an approach of "mathematical exactness and scientific precision"
rather than "gives light to the simple",
one will eventually be disappointed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I haven't read Ehrman ... but have stepped outside that bible box long ago ...
It seems this is part of the definition of a grease spot, if you leave the Bible thang
... perhaps the logical conclusion of any bible believing faith is something TWI like ... absolute adherence to "the Bible". But most live lives of quiet perspiration ...
they just work away and go to church and feel superior in their little Bible world.
So very many still "cling" to the Bible ... even if they left TWI. I'm not sure even now how to address people that are proud they left TWI, but have stuck to their splinter or even their strict Bible belief. Penworks seems to have done some continuing education research and has been brave enough to move beyond "the word of gawd is the will of gawd". Thank gawd. :)
I don't think that leaves only hedonism or a "grease spot" existence ... and I actually feel the true grease splotters are those that are limited in their belief to the grease spotted writings in their king James bibble ... perhaps with a myraid of notes from Bullinger or LCM slobberings.
If we drop the premiss that there ever was a perfect written word, where do we start? We DO exist ... and there does seem to be good and evil, or at least better and worse ... but where ARE we?
Stepping outside the pure bible stuff makes looking at things like the US constitution more interesting. We know who those men were and what they wrote and what they were trying to achieve. They came out of some societal advancements ... and were looking to move forward ...
"we hold these truths to be self evident" ... that is an interesting starting point maybe ... not exactly a premiss I guess ...
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
The three little pigs and the big bad wolf
Little red riding hood
and The red shoes(just keep on dancing dancing dancing like Okie Boy )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
in my opinion, my research paper NEVER should have passed muster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
That would only be true if TWI had actually adhered to the Bible. But those of us who have left TWI but not the Bible have found that "real" Biblical research is so far from what TWI did that it's not even comparable.
Excie,
Care to elaborate on that?
(I wonder how many other Corps grads feel that way about their research papers.)
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
"The Bible is inerrant because it is the Word of God, therefore any inconsistencies can be explained by errors in translation or transmission.
That is the typical approach of Bible fundamentalists who argue for inerrancy."
So much has to be assumed to even get off first base with the statement "the bible is inerrant because it is the Word of God"...The Way's approach - typical - is that the effort to resolve inconsistencies is a worthy endeavor - establishing the correct "Word of God". But there's an element of faith to the effort, to get off the dime - that the bible is in fact the Word of God, to begin with.
So let's say the bible is the Word of God. We know the net result of what we have today is far from perfect. So the effort goes into resolving inconsistencies. "Errors". Stuff that doesn't make sense or by comparison to other information doesn't appear to be right. That's inconsistent with a God who's perfect and who would only produce perfect work. Something must be wrong, so some work has to be done to determine what God was trying to "say" to begin with, to the people that He communed with who were led, inspired, to write those things down.
But back up a minute baby. We're already knee deep in a kettle of fish.
There is next to nothing, little, diddly squatros, that we can see that's been produced by God that's even close to being "perfect". Not to say that some things aren't pretty dammed good. But what's "perfect" anyway? What does that mean?
God's perfect - God expresses Himself, so the outcomes are perfect - okay. So what's going on, that we seem to manage to screw everything up? Things definitely get screwed up, if God's work has to fulfill the criteria of being "perfect".
Not to mention that once things are screwed up, they have to be restored to perfect-state to be fully understood and appreciated.
Don't know if this makes sense, but for a long time now, the concept of the bible meeting the criteria of being "perfect" and completely right and accurate, word for word and from every possible angle - just seems kind of...unusual.
As a whole, the universe we are slowly learnin about is wondrous, beautiful, powerful, inspiring, sometimes outright scarey...but is it "perfect" and completely free of inconsistencies?
I think there may be a case to make that to insist that the bible be brought to a state of complete "accuracy" by human perception may be completely abnormal and unrealistic.
Not to say that God isn't. But from out of the "mouth" of God breathes...life. The Word. The Logos. It may be that we're better served by being motivated and inspired to put our ears to His lips, bringing what we can to the conversation and the wisdom of those who have come before and Heard that Voice - and go for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
Agreed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brushstroke
As I read this post, it made me wonder...
Has anyone inside or outside of TWI ever considered that the problem with biblical inerrancy lies not in the problematic explanations of inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies, but rather in the concept of Sola Scriptura itself?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.