Research and Premises

[Mark Clarke]

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?

Sure. Skeptics use that reasoning all the time. But their examples of the inaccuracies are nearly always based on misunderstanding the Scripture in the first place. On the other hand, many who believe in the Bible can tell you that while what we have may not be "perfect" in the sense of "without corruption," the overall message is better preserved and more intact, than any other ancient writing, by far.

BTW, the Way's idea of explaining inconsistancies was to "twist" it till it fit. On the other hand sound Biblical scholars are not afraid to say "I don't know, the Bible isn't as clear on that." This doesn't mean there was anything wrong with the Bible, or even with the translation. In many cases, it simply is misunderstood because it's not being read in light of the culture in which it was written.

Socks said,

"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."

That was the typical approach of TWI, and may be the approach of some fundamentalists, but not all. More often, the approach is more like, "The Bible must be the Word of God BECAUSE so many of the inconsistancies can be explained, and because the message is verified."

"Not to mention that once things are screwed up, they have to be restored to perfect-state to be fully understood and appreciated."

But we don't have to have it restored to "perfect" state in order to begin to understand it. And the more we understand things in ways that fit, the greater the understanding begins to open up. We will never understand it all perfectly till Christ returns, but we can be a lot more sure of the message than many skeptics think we can. Edited August 30, 2008 by Mark Clarke

[My3Cents]

Back to the original question about they way's research department. I never worked there, but I was friends with people who did (back in the 1980-86 time frame). One person told me point blank that when VPW knew what the scripture "had to say" it was their job to find texts to substantiate it. And he didn't find anything wrong with that - of course neither did I.

It now sounds a lot more like propaganda than research.

He also told me they knew some of VPW's translations that were used in the PFAL class were wrong - or at least could not be substantiated by any known research book.

The library did not contain any actual original manuscripts - those being mostly in museums. But they did have some books that were compilations of them as well as other books you might find in a divinity school.

I know of one guy who worked there after getting a degree from an actual university in a related field (aramaic I think but it's been a while) and he would help out in the research department, but would never let anything be published with his name on it because he knew it would taint his standing in the academic community which he wanted to get back to some day. I don't know if he ever did.

[Seth R.]

Wasn't there a photo here at one time of the TWI Research Library?

I can't seem to find it now.

Was this the Research Library?

[Tzaia]

Back to the original question about they way's research department. I never worked there, but I was friends with people who did (back in the 1980-86 time frame). One person told me point blank that when VPW knew what the scripture "had to say" it was their job to find texts to substantiate it. And he didn't find anything wrong with that - of course neither did I.

So you are saying VPW was guilty of the very thing he condemned other organizations of doing (proof-texting) and not letting the word stand on its own merit (taking things out of context)?

[rhino]

Proof texting ... thanks for that term Tzaia.

Prooftexting

is the practice of using decontextualised quotations from a document (often, but not always, a book of the

Bible

) to establish a proposition

rhetorically

through an

appeal to authority

. Critics of the technique note that often the document, when read as a whole, may not in fact support the proposition.

Ministers and teachers have used the following humorous anecdote to demonstrate the dangers of prooftexting:

A man dissatisfied with his life decided to consult the Bible for guidance. Closing his eyes, he flipped the book open and pointed to a spot on the page. Opening his eyes, he read the verse under his finger. It read, "Then Judas went away and hanged himself" (Matthew 27:5b) Closing his eyes again, the man randomly selected another verse. This one read, "Jesus told him, 'Go and do likewise.'" (Luke 10:37b)

Of course we heard that example.

But VP taught in the foundational class how things were for His Way Ministry. I forget the lead up words, but then he says ... "if it's wrong, I'll tell you" So in his mind, he was the ultimate decider of truth. All the rest of the teaching was just so we'd be able to make the sales pitch to new recruits.

Edited September 1, 2008 by rhino

[WordWolf]

Proof texting ... thanks for that term Tzaia.

Prooftexting

is the practice of using decontextualised quotations from a document (often, but not always, a book of the

Bible

) to establish a proposition

rhetorically

through an

appeal to authority

. Critics of the technique note that often the document, when read as a whole, may not in fact support the proposition.

Ministers and teachers have used the following humorous anecdote to demonstrate the dangers of prooftexting:

A man dissatisfied with his life decided to consult the Bible for guidance. Closing his eyes, he flipped the book open and pointed to a spot on the page. Opening his eyes, he read the verse under his finger. It read, "Then Judas went away and hanged himself" (Matthew 27:5b) Closing his eyes again, the man randomly selected another verse. This one read, "Jesus told him, 'Go and do likewise.'" (Luke 10:37b)

Of course we heard that example.

But VP taught in the foundational class how things were for His Way Ministry. I forget the lead up words, but then he says ... "if it's wrong, I'll tell you" So in his mind, he was the ultimate decider of truth. All the rest of the teaching was just so we'd be able to make the sales pitch to new recruits.

Yes, thanks for the term.

And vpw's version of the story ended with the man randomly selecting a third verse. This one read (John 13:27) "That thou doest, do quickly."

[Tzaia]

But VP taught in the foundational class how things were for His Way Ministry. I forget the lead up words, but then he says ... "if it's wrong, I'll tell you" So in his mind, he was the ultimate decider of truth. All the rest of the teaching was just so we'd be able to make the sales pitch to new recruits.

It's been a looong time since I took the class, and I only sat through it twice, but my memory is that somehow he had risen above using the scriptures to support his own beliefs and that his beliefs arose by an "honest" approach to the scripture (no ax to grind, etc.)

The first time I started seeing that he wasn't really doing that was when I read the "Order My Steps in Thy Word" book.

[rhino]

It's been a looong time since I took the class, and I only sat through it twice, but my memory is that somehow he had risen above using the scriptures to support his own beliefs and that his beliefs arose by an "honest" approach to the scripture (no ax to grind, etc.)

The first time I started seeing that he wasn't really doing that was when I read the "Order My Steps in Thy Word" book.

Well, he didn't really mean to teach "if it's wrong, I'll tell you" ... it is just one of those incongruities that stands out to me ... even then I had to laugh at it.

What he taught in piffle was seemingly just stolen, so it is when he is off script that you hear his real thinking ... maybe. It appears from what my3cents and others have said, that VP didn't even respect the research team to come up with anything on their own, unless it had his stamp of approval.

Or worse, he started with the answer and then looked for something to substantiate what he wanted.

I guess we don't know if he left the church for more freedom to "research", or if he had already given up by then, and turned to the "dark side".

[excathedra]

Mark, I don't know how to expound on how I know my research paper wasn't research. I'm smart enough to know how much I don't know, I guess lol

I think even more disappointing was having a research advisor give it a stamp of approval, if that makes any sense.

And my3cents not sure if you're talking about Dan McConaughy (i wonder if i'm spelling that right), but I believe he has his Ph.D. in some kind of field along these lines.

Now I think he could would be a researcher in my book.

And if it was him (well, no matter) -- whoever it was that didn't want his name put on the way's research was very smart indeed, in my opinion.

Thanks.

Edited September 1, 2008 by excathedra

[excathedra]

a quick google

Daniel L. McConaughy....also internationally recognized for Syriac manuscript discoveries....

[T-Bone]

Back to the original question about they way's research department. I never worked there, but I was friends with people who did (back in the 1980-86 time frame). One person told me point blank that when VPW knew what the scripture "had to say" it was their job to find texts to substantiate it. And he didn't find anything wrong with that - of course neither did I.

It now sounds a lot more like propaganda than research.

He also told me they knew some of VPW's translations that were used in the PFAL class were wrong - or at least could not be substantiated by any known research book.

The library did not contain any actual original manuscripts - those being mostly in museums. But they did have some books that were compilations of them as well as other books you might find in a divinity school.

I know of one guy who worked there after getting a degree from an actual university in a related field (aramaic I think but it's been a while) and he would help out in the research department, but would never let anything be published with his name on it because he knew it would taint his standing in the academic community which he wanted to get back to some day. I don't know if he ever did.

So you are saying VPW was guilty of the very thing he condemned other organizations of doing (proof-texting) and not letting the word stand on its own merit (taking things out of context)?

Proof texting ... thanks for that term Tzaia.

Prooftexting

is the practice of using decontextualised quotations from a document (often, but not always, a book of the

Bible

) to establish a proposition

rhetorically

through an

appeal to authority

. Critics of the technique note that often the document, when read as a whole, may not in fact support the proposition.

Ministers and teachers have used the following humorous anecdote to demonstrate the dangers of prooftexting:

A man dissatisfied with his life decided to consult the Bible for guidance. Closing his eyes, he flipped the book open and pointed to a spot on the page. Opening his eyes, he read the verse under his finger. It read, "Then Judas went away and hanged himself" (Matthew 27:5b) Closing his eyes again, the man randomly selected another verse. This one read, "Jesus told him, 'Go and do likewise.'" (Luke 10:37b)

Of course we heard that example.

But VP taught in the foundational class how things were for His Way Ministry. I forget the lead up words, but then he says ... "if it's wrong, I'll tell you" So in his mind, he was the ultimate decider of truth. All the rest of the teaching was just so we'd be able to make the sales pitch to new recruits.

Well, he didn't really mean to teach "if it's wrong, I'll tell you" ... it is just one of those incongruities that stands out to me ... even then I had to laugh at it.

What he taught in piffle was seemingly just stolen, so it is when he is off script that you hear his real thinking ... maybe. It appears from what my3cents and others have said, that VP didn't even respect the research team to come up with anything on their own, unless it had his stamp of approval.

Or worse, he started with the answer and then looked for something to substantiate what he wanted.

I guess we don't know if he left the church for more freedom to "research", or if he had already given up by then, and turned to the "dark side".

Great points! Talking about proof-texting, that reminds me of a good book on erroneous interpretation methods that I read shortly after leaving TWI: Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible by James Sire.

Thinking about the academic aspect of TWI, I believe a HUGE factor contributing to the faulty research and premises was vp's way of pitting "spirituality" against reason. And if you didn't follow his line of thinking on something, it meant you weren't spiritual.

In The Blue Book, The Bible Tells Me So, Chapter 3 Are You Limiting God?, page 23, vp says:

"…We have been so schooled to revere the knowledge that comes to us through our five senses that we fail to recognize the knowledge that comes from the higher realm, the spiritual, where the Word of God, and not reason, has first place. Both realms or worlds are here: the natural world is factual; the spiritual world is true…"

End of Excerpt

And I remember a big point made in the Advanced Class was that spiritual knowledge cannot be analyzed; only ascertained…vp's assertions served to give his doctrines intellectual immunity – "truths" that were unassailable by mere reasoning mortals. Laying aside vp's penchant for plagiarism, the thing that made his work or anything based on his work so laughable imho was the assumption that vp or PFAL was THE standard for truth, as LCM once said in an old Way Magazine article PFAL is the touchstone for truth...Critical thinking was sacrificed on an altar that revered PFAL above anything else - even the Bible!

~~

Another point I'd like to make - which would probably be more appropriate in the doctrinal forum: In my opinion, Scripture pits faith against the five senses but does NOT pit faith against reason.

~~

in my opinion, my research paper NEVER should have passed muster

The same goes for my research paper. A directive that LCM gave the Corps before starting our research paper was: Don't try to re-invent the wheel – base it on something from PFAL. I don't believe a typical TWI follower could think their way out of a paper bag with both sides of their brain tied behind a PFAL book.

Edited September 1, 2008 by T-Bone

[Mark Clarke]

What gets me is that many of us (myself included) actually thought we were researching the Bible, when in fact we were just "working" VPW's writings. I, and others, even commented on how VP taught us to search the Scriptures for ourselves and not take his word for it. When I do that now, I see the error of his logic and doctrines. I'm amazed that I didn't see it before.

[Mark Clarke]

Another point I'd like to make - which would probably be more appropriate in the doctrinal forum: In my opinion, Scripture pits faith against the five senses but does NOT pit faith against reason.

Good point! I would even go so far as to say that the Scripture doesn't ALWAYS pit faith against even the five senses. God gave us many signs we could observe with our senses in order to help our faith, the chiefest of them being the Resurrection. Christianity is not "blind" faith but a reasonable faith based on God's having moved in history.

The same goes for my research paper. A directive that LCM gave the Corps before starting our research paper was: Don't try to re-invent the wheel – base it on something from PFAL. I don't believe a typical TWI follower could think their way out of a paper bag with both sides of their brain tied behind a PFAL book.

I remember W@lt3r C*mm!ns saying the same thing in a Keys to Research class. But it's not so much that the typical TWI follower couldn't think. It's that we were so indoctrinated with the idea that VP had "done the hard work for us" so we didn't need to redo it.

[T-Bone]

Right, Mark! [this is in response to your post # 37 - since I take soooooo long to post - but I also like the points you made in post # 38 ] I feel the same way. And our blindness was due to the TWI mindset wrapped up in an amazing cloak of invisibility. After wearing those PFAL-colored glasses for awhile, we were not even aware that we had them on...I'm certainly no expert on critical thinking - but something I've figured out about it so far, is that effective critical thinking must have some kind of self-diagnostic aspect to it - AND the freedom to check out all the angles on a given issue. In other words, our thought process should incorporate ways to check out our own logic, isolate & identify viewpoints & assumptions, analyze all viewpoints for validity. But that kind of thinking was impossible in an oppressive environment that frowned upon challenges and questions to their frame of thought.

Edited September 1, 2008 by T-Bone

[Mark Clarke]

Exactly, T-bone! We weren't even aware, in many cases, what other viewpoints existed. And those we were aware of were not presented to us with a logical reason why they were wrong, they were just mocked and belittled. I've found out since that many of those views that we were taught to laugh at are actually more Biblical. I've made a point on my website to present what other views I know of, along with the logic of why I think they're wrong.

[Ham]

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.

"Unusual".. it would be as unusual to find a bunch of physicists that insisted on the "God breathed" accuracy of Newtonian mechanics..

or the "accuracy" of Neils Bohr's atomic theory- which only mathmatically explained hydrogen. Once one looks at helium, or any other element, it falls apart..

People in the "real world" have a grip on this..

they don't think or claim Newton, or Bohr, or anyone before them were "wrong" as such.. more like, they were on the right track.

In physics, we still study Bohr's development. Why? Because it's "god breathed".. "errorless".. ?

No.. but because what he developed was a stepping stone along the way to what we know about modern physics..

[Tzaia]

I've made a point on my website to present what other views I know of, along with the logic of why I think they're wrong.

Which is entirely reasonable. In my opinion, there's 2 types of research that is predominant - one to prove I'm right, and one to prove you're wrong. Each one begins with a premise. The problem comes about when, during research, we are confronted with the inaccuracy of the premise. Do we reexamine the original premise, or do we jump through hoops to defend the premise?

I don't have a problem with admitting I'm wrong or changing my mind based on facts that are presented to me. I struggle with "because I said so." As much as I can, I try to remove bias from my research.

[My3Cents]

So you are saying VPW was guilty of the very thing he condemned other organizations of doing (proof-texting) and not letting the word stand on its own merit (taking things out of context)?

Yes.

And no, the person I referred to wasn't Dan McConaughy