The "Orange" Book

[Tzaia]

The poll thread was getting very derailed by discussion of the "Orange" book, so I'm starting a new thread.

Mike quoted:

The Orange Book, page-128 says

Now, I said that no translation, let alone a version, may properly be called the

Word of God. As far as anybody knows, there are no original texts in existence

today. The oldest dated Biblical manuscript is from 464 AD and written in

Aramaic in Estrangelo script. There are older Aramaic manuscripts written in the

Estrangelo script which predate 464 AD, but these are not Biblical texts.

What students or scholars refer to as 'originals' really date from 464 AD and

later.

Since I have taken up research, I was astounded that this statement was written with no citation. Actually, there isn't a citation in the entire book, but that's beside the point.

It is an inaccurate statement. Greek was the common administrative and written language for the entire region. This is historic fact. Most of the people of that day were illiterate. This is also historical fact. People who spoke Aramaic probably couldn't read it, much less write it down as it was primarily an oral means of communication.

I believe statements such as the one in red was just the beginning of how VPW started romancing people to his way of thinking regarding how the bible was to be read and interpreted. Back when he wrote the book, it was pretty hard to check that little tidbit against other sources. Now there is a wealth of information available, and it's usually free. MIKE: the fact that you aren't looking at that information that has come out largely since you started studying TWI materials exclusively does not reflect well regarding your scholarship, especially since VPW admonished us to not take his word for things. Read his stuff and study it, but to do it without a critical eye is foolish. That lack of critical evaluation is what allowed the abuses to start and grow.

Now that these tools are readily available for research, any discussion of VPW's "work" can and should be evaluated using standard methods of scholarship and critiqued accordingly.

[Ham]

The oldest dated Biblical manuscript is from 464 AD and written in

Aramaic in Estrangelo script. There are older Aramaic manuscripts written in the

Estrangelo script which predate 464 AD, but these are not Biblical texts.

and further, why no reference to what and where these "manuscripts" he refers to?

very very little "detail" for a "research" publication..

I remember him talking about the *great* significance of the "research" of da way in Aramaic and all.. why no or little details regarding these "fantastic" discoveries in foreign languages? What do they think they actually FOUND that no one else in the world found, or had access to?

I guess it looked scholarly.. walked scholarly, but at the end of the day, it just ended up being a pitiful second-rate cult..

[leafytwiglet]

Hmmm he also forgets entirely about the dead sea scrolls

Here is a link to a page about them

By the way I take no responsibility to their truth and the intent of this site other than they are selling items. :)

25 facts aabout the dead sea scrolls

here is a more authoritative site

Info on them from the library of congress

OF course the information or the translation of them may not have been out yet either.

I soo love the internet at times.

BTW translations were not available until affter VPW's death.

Edited January 10, 2009 by leafytwiglet

[Mark Clarke]

Yes, the bulk of the Aramaic work that was done was much later than VP's Studies in Abundant Living books. Still, there wasn't even a lot of detail about the Greek or Hebrew texts, which have been known for hundreds of years.

And the detail that was mentioned, in his other books, was often faulty. I mentioned the case of dechomai / lambano in the other thread and there were others as well. He tried to pass himself off as a Greek scholar, but his knowledge of the language was minimal at best.

Also, very little, if anything, was ever taught in TWI about textual criticism, which is how we can know more of what the "original" message was when their are textual variations. It's obvious Mike knows little about how that works if he is convinced that the original message is "irretrievably lost" - something that not even Wierwille claimed.

Edited January 10, 2009 by Mark Clarke

[waysider]

In the Advanced Class, he stated that The Dead Sea Scrolls were counterfeit.

Pretty hasty judgment of something he hadn't even examined.

[Mark Clarke]

In the Advanced Class, he stated that The Dead Sea Scrolls were counterfeit.

Pretty hasty judgment of something he hadn't even examined.

Wow! I didn't remember him saying that. Was that in the video from AC '79?

[waysider]

Wow! I didn't remember him saying that. Was that in the video from AC '79?

Live class---1973

[Rejoice]

Sheesh! Unless it was released from TWI, everything was labeled "counterfeit." Just their way of getting us to doubt everything.

[leafytwiglet]

Yes, the bulk of the Aramaic work that was done was much later than VP's Studies in Abundant Living books. Still, there wasn't even a lot of detail about the Greek or Hebrew texts, which have been known for hundreds of years.

And the detail that was mentioned, in his other books, was often faulty. I mentioned the case of dechomai / lambano in the other thread and there were others as well. He tried to pass himself off as a Greek scholar, but his knowledge of the language was minimal at best.

Also, very little, if anything, was ever taught in TWI about textual criticism, which is how we can know more of what the "original" message was when their are textual variations. It's obvious Mike knows little about how that works if he is convinced that the original message is "irretrievably lost" - something that not even Wierwille claimed.

What makes my heart ache even more than the inaccuracies are the people like mike who could be studying the actual Word of God and sharing that knowledge with the world. But they have been side railed with VPW words.

What if VPW had actually harnessed all that youth and talent for actually studying the bible via the corps. It would have been a very different ministry.

[WhiteDove]

In the Advanced Class, he stated that The Dead Sea Scrolls were counterfeit.

Pretty hasty judgment of something he hadn't even examined.

Interestingly enough in later years they published a GMIR article on the scrolls They surfaced from time to time in Way magazines over the years. Here is a couple of quotes from printed documentation.

" The Dead Sea Scrolls provide a wealth of background material for first-century Palestine. If as is quite possible, these documents are not merely the product of an obscure desert sect, but of first century Jerusalem, they should be certainly be considered as prime sources for textual and background material in Biblical studies."

"Whatever their origin the Dead Sea Scrolls contribute to Biblical research in a number of ways. The discovery of these scrolls has broadened the scope of Old Testament textual research and has provided evidence for establishing a more accurate rendering of certain scriptures."

GMIR Sept. - Oct 86 Karen Masterson

Edited January 11, 2009 by WhiteDove

[Oakspear]

And the detail that was mentioned, in his other books, was often faulty. I mentioned the case of dechomai / lambano in the other thread and there were others as well. He tried to pass himself off as a Greek scholar, but his knowledge of the language was minimal at best.

And we all allowed ourselves to be convinced that we were biblical scholars ourselves because we could look up "receive" in a concordance and determine if it was dechomai or lambano. So often we used faulty information such as what you mentioned as the basis for our "research". Many of us had interlinears and lexicons on our bookshelves without even the slightest idea how to use them.

[JesseJoe]

I mentioned the case of dechomai / lambano in the other thread and there were others as well.

Where is the post you are referencing? I would like to check it out.

Thanks!

Shelly

[Ham]

other gems of "research" included the supposed difference between throughly and thoroughly..

[waysider]

Lambano, laballo, ballo, ball, throw, throw the ball, throw the whole thing out.

[Mark Clarke]

Where is the post you are referencing? I would like to check it out.

Thanks!

Shelly

Over in the Snowstorm thread. The specific post where I mentioned it was here.

[Mark Clarke]

And we all allowed ourselves to be convinced that we were biblical scholars ourselves because we could look up "receive" in a concordance and determine if it was dechomai or lambano. So often we used faulty information such as what you mentioned as the basis for our "research". Many of us had interlinears and lexicons on our bookshelves without even the slightest idea how to use them.

Yet in all those years I never noticed that the difference in definitions that VP gave them was not even in Bullinger's Lexicon. Not to mention the many cases in which the understanding of a passage depended on more than looking up a word in the concordance. It wasn't until I started reading works of "real" Biblical scholars that I realized how little we knew.

[Ham]

so much of the last part of that book was just a cut and paste from Bullinger.. the four crucified, day Jesus Christ died.. the three days and three nights..

not a single footnote referencing Bullinger..

the only thing "original" was "the cry of triumph"..

oh.. I forgot.. that was Lamsa's work..

[Oakspear]

Yet in all those years I never noticed that the difference in definitions that VP gave them was not even in Bullinger's Lexicon.

I don't remember what year I noticed it, but I eventually did...I probably decided to "hold it in abeyance".

Not to mention the many cases in which the understanding of a passage depended on more than looking up a word in the concordance. It wasn't until I started reading works of "real" Biblical scholars that I realized how little we knew.

Like what part of speech, voice, mood, tense, etc. jsut for starters.

[Tzaia]

And "all without exception" or "all without distinction"

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=4680

[Mark Clarke]

Not to mention the many cases in which the understanding of a passage depended on more than looking up a word in the concordance. It wasn't until I started reading works of "real" Biblical scholars that I realized how little we knew.

Like what part of speech, voice, mood, tense, etc. jsut for starters.

Not only that, but things like context and comparing similar passages, which were referred to in teachings on keys to research, but which comparatively few in TWI really knew how to do. Most "study" fellowships I was involved with zeroed in on the minutiae of the Greek words, and rarely dealt with the meaning of whole passages, let alone with related passages that had the same meaning but used different words.

[themex]

John W.Schenheit has a teaching called: "We can Trust the Written Word" and in it he explained some things about how the scritpures arrived up to our day and time. He also talks about a book: "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,Corruption and Restoration" by Bruce M. Metzger.

[Twinky]

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered nearly 60 years ago. Wow, that's a loooong time.

Scholars have been examining them bit by bit, very slowly to start with, but copies have been released for quite a long time now. You would think a "research" ministry would have something to say, wouldn't you? I was expecting something, at least, as Corps studies: "We don't understand all this yet, but..." Historical value and background, even if not accepted as authoritative or copies of the scriptures. There are reference books and materials available.

Looks from a post on this thread that Karen M had some interest; no doubt Walter C would also be interested. But of course anyone who knew anything or had interests other than simply VPW material got run off before they could expose the guru.

[Tzaia]

John W.Schenheit has a teaching called: "We can Trust the Written Word" and in it he explained some things about how the scritpures arrived up to our day and time. He also talks about a book: "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,Corruption and Restoration" by Bruce M. Metzger.

I have read his stuff and I have read other's work. He really has no new light on the subject. I've found Bart Ehrman's work to be very enlightening.

[WhiteDove]

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered nearly 60 years ago. Wow, that's a loooong time.

Scholars have been examining them bit by bit, very slowly to start with, but copies have been released for quite a long time now. You would think a "research" ministry would have something to say, wouldn't you? I was expecting something, at least, as Corps studies: "We don't understand all this yet, but..." Historical value and background, even if not accepted as authoritative or copies of the scriptures. There are reference books and materials available.

Looks from a post on this thread that Karen M had some interest; no doubt Walter C would also be interested. But of course anyone who knew anything or had interests other than simply VPW material got run off before they could expose the guru.

Really the high resolution digital copies are still just now being released. I think there were others also who had interest in the scrolls, if I remember Dr. Dan McConaughy 7th Corps did some work on them.

[socks]

" The Dead Sea Scrolls provide a wealth of background material for first-century Palestine. If as is quite possible, these documents are not merely the product of an obscure desert sect, but of first century Jerusalem, they should be certainly be considered as prime sources for textual and background material in Biblical studies."

This was an interesting observation. I have Dr. Norman Golb's book "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?—The Search for the Secret of Qumran" and really enjoyed it, found it to be a detailed sorting out of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and the Qumran "Essene" site. He wrote it in 1995, but his work on the topic dates much earlier. At the expense of over simplifying his book, he felt that there was a rush to assign the location of the Qumran excavation as "the" long lost Essene community of biblical times and that the actual evidence didn't match a city where a community would have lived and functioned. He thought it was a closer match to a military outpost. His evidence and arguments are compelling. Although it's old now, it's a great piece of work on the topic IMO if anyone's interested.