Charlene - this is a great article. I have read many of the same books (I'm well into the Karen Armstrong books) and have to agree that TWI and the offshoot that I was involved with were no more research oriented than any other denomination. The realization that I was as guilty of proof-texting in my approach to study as anyone was sobering.
If you really want to get into legitimate Biblical Research, 3 of the following materials might work for you:1.Multipurpose tools for Bible Study- Frederick Danker, Fortress Press. 2. Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Manners and Customs-Howard Vos. 3. Hard Sayings of the Bible- Walter Keiser, Peter Davids, F. F. Bruce, Manfred Brauch; InterVaristy Press. Something different than Wierwille, Bullinger, Kenyon, Pilai, Lamsa, Erricco, Derek Prince, Olsteen, Ruben Archer Torrey, Schoenheit, etc.
Charlene, the only problem I have with the article is that you describe the inerrancy of the Bible as a TWI conclusion. I don't remember ANYONE ever saying "...therefore, God's Word is perfect." The inerrancy of the Bible is an AXIOM, something assumed to be true without proof. For me, a fundamentalist, it is not only reasonable but also makes the Bible more than just a bunch of short stories. It makes more sense to me to believe ALL of it than to pick and choose.
Charlene, the only problem I have with the article is that you describe the inerrancy of the Bible as a TWI conclusion. I don't remember ANYONE ever saying "...therefore, God's Word is perfect." The inerrancy of the Bible is an AXIOM, something assumed to be true without proof. For me, a fundamentalist, it is not only reasonable but also makes the Bible more than just a bunch of short stories. It makes more sense to me to believe ALL of it than to pick and choose.
George
You brought out a good point when you said,"The inerrancy of the Bible is an AXIOM, something assumed to be true without proof. For me, a fundamentalist, it is not only reasonable but also makes the Bible more than just a bunch of short stories."
Actually, that is my point, that it is something assumed to be true without proof. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever shown it to be "true." For that reason, it is in the category of belief. Which is fine. Most people just don't come out and say it is their belief. They say it is the truth.
And you are right, it is not only a TWI "problem" as you said. It is an assumption made by anyone who believes the Bible is the Word of God.
VPW said this sort of thing all the time. PFAL book, page 128:
"If it is God's Word, then it cannot have a contradiction for God cannot contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding. When we get back to the original, God-breathed Word - which I am confident we can - then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the prophets of old, "Thus saith the Lord."
Not having a contradiction means without error, which is inerrancy. Anything without error is perfect.
Has anyone shown the Bible in its completion to be perfect?
Which canon and which translation of which version would you use to show it?
Those are questions to which I have no answers...do you?
These are honest questions I've been asking myself for a long time...my conclusion is it is okay not to have answers. Life is bigger than this...
What the hell does that really mean anyway? Isn't that contrary to research? True, objective research would have to mean that you are willing to re-examine your conclusions to see if they still fit in light of new findings that may have a shared context. Currently at TWI - they have what they term "proven ministry research". It's silently considered above any further "research". And yes, this means that the so called research Department, which is really President's Publications, spends time working things from what has already been published as a first, and almost always final, authority. The logic you may ask? What has been published is "proven ministry research". To me it would be more honest to call it "enshrined conclusions from supposed research that happened a long time ago by people who are either dead or long gone".
I only wish I was as cynical as this sounds...it's true.
VPW’s belief in inerrancy is a hallmark of Christian Fundamentalism (more on this below). But inerrancy of the Bible is a conclusion, as discussed above, and disqualifies TWI’s Bible study as research. People conducting Biblical research, or any kind of research, should not state their desired conclusion when starting the research because they do not yet know what the conclusion is going to be. That person would be looking for evidence to back up the conclusion they already believe is the true and correct one.
Actually, fundamentalist conclusions are not the result of true and genuine research in any real meaning of the word, as research doesn't start with presuppositions. Ie., a presupposed conclusion. All a fundamentalist conclusion is is a _belief_. ... Period. ... Nothing more, and nothing less.
Then I saw George's argument here:
The inerrancy of the Bible is an AXIOM, something assumed to be true without proof. For me, a fundamentalist, it is not only reasonable but also makes the Bible more than just a bunch of short stories.
Which just illustrates my point further. In spades! :blink: And the fact that he views it as reasonable cinches the deal. ... True without proof? ... Reasonable?
You illustrate TWI as a classic case of fundamentalism, Charlene. More than I think you realize. ;)
We bought things without thinking. "You have to get your needs and wants parallel" Makes no sense, it would make more sense, "You have to get your needs and wants to intersect" Someone corrected VP by saying it should be "Need and Wants perpendicular"
(In addition to your bible, please bring a compass and slide rule to fellowship tonight)
. . . It makes more sense to me to believe ALL of it than to pick and choose.
. . .
That does make a lot more sense. I find the other Christians generally more silly than the fundies (except for some). "Oh, no, see, you can't read it that way! . . . We're so much smarter now than Christians from years ago . . ." (Where have I heard that before?)
Oh, okay . . . I guess you found some magic rocks in a hat that helps you decode your holy book. The heck is the book for anyway if its all in code? We've all got to culture and history experts now? How often does that change? How plastic can this holy book get?
Mind as well view the bible as a mere curiosity.
People rising from the dead, eternal life . . . doesn't the laws of thermodynamics show the whole book to be preposterous?
There are a lot of folks in churches who don't believe in any of the stories of Jesus and such. They just like the ideas presented. Perhaps a lot of "non-fundie" christians are merely in transition to become church-going nonbelievers.
For me, a fundamentalist, it is not only reasonable but also makes the Bible more than just a bunch of short stories. It makes more sense to me to believe ALL of it than to pick and choose.
George
I've been thinking about these sorts of things a long time, myself. One thing I found is that there are other ways to value the Bible besides thinkig it is has to be either "God's Word" (thereby it has to be perfect because God is perfect) or a "bunch of stories" like you said. When someone says "a bunch of stories" to me it seems to belittle the documents in the Bible. I don't think we need to do that. I don't think you intended that, right?
There are other good options to valuing the literature of the Bible that respect the culture and writers of these documents. After all, it's a book of rich imagery, myth, cultural viewpoints, personal accounts, and yes, there are stories - good ones that teach interesting lessons - and there is much wisdom to be found between those two covers, in my view it is mostly found in Ecclesiates and parts of Proverbs, for instance. But IMO it should not be my only rule of faith and practice, nor should I attribute to it qualities it does not have. And it is unfair of me to expect it to apply to me today in most instances. That's where we run into trouble accusing people of not being believers like they did in the epistles of Paul. But that's another long story...
Anyway, I think one thing we face in this discussion is VPW's tendency to pose EITHER/OR questions. That thinking forces us to make a choice between only those two ways of looking at the Bible. It rules out FOR US any other ways. I know one thing, it certainly intimidated me from investigating other ways and making up my own mind.
This is a big topic, so I'll stop for now.
My intention here is just to shed a little more light on this subject than I did in the article on the front page.
So is it fear that triggers a "nostalgic reaction"? i.e. Realizing one has wasted 20 years on utter nonsense, but not wanting to accept it?
. . .
Also, a lot of the young folks today in twi, who were born in the 80s and 90s, seem to be nostalgic for the 70s. They weren't there. . . . Don't know what to think about that . . . My word is as good as theirs.
So is it fear that triggers a "nostalgic reaction"? i.e. Realizing one has wasted 20 years on utter nonsense, but not wanting to accept it?
I don't think that's quite it. That would fall under the umbrella of self delusion. And, that may well be what we are really talking about.
"Triggers" are generally activated by one of the five senses, smell being the most powerful. They're not an intellectual process but rather an emotional response. Fear is an emotion, not one of the five senses, thus it is not a trigger, in and of itself, though it may be the product of a trigger.
Here's an example of a trigger:
When I was young, we would take a bus to get to Public Square. The bus stop at the end was directly in front of a shop that fresh roasted various nuts. The aroma was intoxicating. Furthermore, I always enjoyed my trips downtown. Years later, when I would smell fresh nuts roasting, I would be almost overcome with a sense of "homesickness". It was not based on any particular instance or thought. It was purely emotional. For a long time I could not for the life of me understand why I had that reaction to fresh roasting nuts. Then, coincidentally, I happened to take a bus that deposited me right in front of that very same shop. At that moment, I was able to intellectualize something that had only, up to that point, been an emotional experience.
So, long story made short---- Fear of wasted time may very well be an important factor but I would hesitate to classify it as a "trigger".
I'd like to have the money I handed over......Ithought it would be a blessing used for teaching others about God Almighty. Instead, much of it is feathering rfr's mattress (figuratively).
I would like to have some of the time back too. I would have loved working with my handbell choir, continuing my own music lessons, being at my children's games etc on a more consistent basis. And I surely would have been better all around if I had more than 4 1/2 hours sleep half the time.
But the past is the past. It's on the other side of the gate and I can't go there again. But what I can do is learn a better way.
Krys, I understand your frustration. Within the approximate 10 years to get a Bachelor's degree and 3 colleges/Universities, If I had never heard of Victor Paul Wierwille or The Way International, I could have gotten married, had a Master's degree in Organ, had children, and possibly had a decent Church job as Organist/Director of Music here in the Hickory area(decent salary). No, I just had to attend ECU during the energy/gasoline crisis, traveling 7-9 hours from Western NC(and it was another 2 hours to the beach). If God wanted me to have an academic hobby in Biblical Research, I could have found some of TWI's materials such as Bullinger,Torrey,Cliffe,Kenyon,Lamsa(and Errico),Pilai,Freeman, Prince, Albert Benjamin Simpson, and others in Christian Family Bookstore. I wasted nearly a decade chasing TWI and causing my family/other relatives and friends heartache(which may have contributed to their health problems and early deaths).
I'd like to have the money I handed over......Ithought it would be a blessing used for teaching others about God Almighty. Instead, much of it is feathering rfr's mattress (figuratively).
I would like to have some of the time back too. I would have loved working with my handbell choir, continuing my own music lessons, being at my children's games etc on a more consistent basis. And I surely would have been better all around if I had more than 4 1/2 hours sleep half the time.
But the past is the past. It's on the other side of the gate and I can't go there again. But what I can do is learn a better way.
So I have some questions:
What do we do now with speaking in tongues?
what about some of the manifestations?
Was there even a resurrection?
These are honest questions and since I started all this whirlwind, I'll try to say something here...
I think each person would want to address them on their own. They are, IMO, matters of faith not reason. I venture to say that some people form beliefs about them without necessarily accepting the idea that the Bible is "perfect." To me, they are matters to which theology poses answers.
Theology (the study of the nature of God and religious issues) is a big topic with a long history, and since I am not a theologian, I can't offer answers to these questions.
What I can offer is my view: that there are no pat answers.
The challenge is to admit we're always taking someone's word (for the most part) for whatever "answers" come our way about anything.
We trust a lot of things for which we do not have "proof" or understand (except maybe you scientists out there) - like electricity. We can't see it, hear it, smell it, taste it or touch it (hope not) but it is real and we rely on it.
For me, trusting what even VPW used to call "the still small voice" inside (isn't it ironic that even HE used to encourage us to do that?) is what's been the best help to me over the years post-TWI.
Willima James masterpiece, The Varieties of Religious Experience, is a good source for thinking about these issues, too. It's huge, though. I've only read some of it but found it helpful...and comforting.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
43
39
63
36
Popular Days
Feb 8
30
Nov 3
21
Nov 4
20
Feb 12
18
Top Posters In This Topic
geisha779 43 posts
waysider 39 posts
penworks 63 posts
spectrum49 36 posts
Popular Days
Feb 8 2010
30 posts
Nov 3 2009
21 posts
Nov 4 2009
20 posts
Feb 12 2010
18 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
Hold everything. Some people can believe that they are not sure they believe in God. That is another topic that belongs in a different thread, IMO. I appreciate these lessons in mathmatics and lo
Sunesis
With all due respect Spectrum, who cares when this thread will end? Most people here have enjoyed reading the posts and having their say. Sure, threads meander here, there, everywhere. Its the Body
penworks
I've been thinking about these sorts of things a long time, myself. One thing I found is that there are other ways to value the Bible besides thinkig it is has to be either "God's Word" (thereby it h
Tzaia
Charlene - this is a great article. I have read many of the same books (I'm well into the Karen Armstrong books) and have to agree that TWI and the offshoot that I was involved with were no more research oriented than any other denomination. The realization that I was as guilty of proof-texting in my approach to study as anyone was sobering.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
If you really want to get into legitimate Biblical Research, 3 of the following materials might work for you:1.Multipurpose tools for Bible Study- Frederick Danker, Fortress Press. 2. Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Manners and Customs-Howard Vos. 3. Hard Sayings of the Bible- Walter Keiser, Peter Davids, F. F. Bruce, Manfred Brauch; InterVaristy Press. Something different than Wierwille, Bullinger, Kenyon, Pilai, Lamsa, Erricco, Derek Prince, Olsteen, Ruben Archer Torrey, Schoenheit, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Charlene, the only problem I have with the article is that you describe the inerrancy of the Bible as a TWI conclusion. I don't remember ANYONE ever saying "...therefore, God's Word is perfect." The inerrancy of the Bible is an AXIOM, something assumed to be true without proof. For me, a fundamentalist, it is not only reasonable but also makes the Bible more than just a bunch of short stories. It makes more sense to me to believe ALL of it than to pick and choose.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rejoice
I went on to read her story Affinity for Windows...
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/editorial/editorial-items/affinity.html
Many of us went through those same doubts and realizations, but Charlene's writing style is spot on!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
You brought out a good point when you said,"The inerrancy of the Bible is an AXIOM, something assumed to be true without proof. For me, a fundamentalist, it is not only reasonable but also makes the Bible more than just a bunch of short stories."
Actually, that is my point, that it is something assumed to be true without proof. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever shown it to be "true." For that reason, it is in the category of belief. Which is fine. Most people just don't come out and say it is their belief. They say it is the truth.
And you are right, it is not only a TWI "problem" as you said. It is an assumption made by anyone who believes the Bible is the Word of God.
VPW said this sort of thing all the time. PFAL book, page 128:
"If it is God's Word, then it cannot have a contradiction for God cannot contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding. When we get back to the original, God-breathed Word - which I am confident we can - then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the prophets of old, "Thus saith the Lord."
Not having a contradiction means without error, which is inerrancy. Anything without error is perfect.
Has anyone shown the Bible in its completion to be perfect?
Which canon and which translation of which version would you use to show it?
Those are questions to which I have no answers...do you?
These are honest questions I've been asking myself for a long time...my conclusion is it is okay not to have answers. Life is bigger than this...
Peace,
Charlene
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I no longer feel like "I know that I know that I know".
And I'm fine with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
What the hell does that really mean anyway? Isn't that contrary to research? True, objective research would have to mean that you are willing to re-examine your conclusions to see if they still fit in light of new findings that may have a shared context. Currently at TWI - they have what they term "proven ministry research". It's silently considered above any further "research". And yes, this means that the so called research Department, which is really President's Publications, spends time working things from what has already been published as a first, and almost always final, authority. The logic you may ask? What has been published is "proven ministry research". To me it would be more honest to call it "enshrined conclusions from supposed research that happened a long time ago by people who are either dead or long gone".
I only wish I was as cynical as this sounds...it's true.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Hell's bells!
Wierwille didn't even know the meaning of "research"------of any kind.
According to VP, it was searching something that had already been searched, thus, re-search. What kind of backwoods logic is that????
Doesn't that just make you want to start a bonfire, hold hands and sing Kumbaya?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Kind of like refried beans have been fried before....lol!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
What about "Make it your own."?
Wouldn't that be somewhat akin to that dastardly practice of "private interpretation"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I came across this in the article:
Actually, fundamentalist conclusions are not the result of true and genuine research in any real meaning of the word, as research doesn't start with presuppositions. Ie., a presupposed conclusion. All a fundamentalist conclusion is is a _belief_. ... Period. ... Nothing more, and nothing less.
Then I saw George's argument here:
Which just illustrates my point further. In spades! :blink: And the fact that he views it as reasonable cinches the deal. ... True without proof? ... Reasonable?
You illustrate TWI as a classic case of fundamentalism, Charlene. More than I think you realize. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
We bought things without thinking. "You have to get your needs and wants parallel" Makes no sense, it would make more sense, "You have to get your needs and wants to intersect" Someone corrected VP by saying it should be "Need and Wants perpendicular"
(In addition to your bible, please bring a compass and slide rule to fellowship tonight)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
That does make a lot more sense. I find the other Christians generally more silly than the fundies (except for some). "Oh, no, see, you can't read it that way! . . . We're so much smarter now than Christians from years ago . . ." (Where have I heard that before?)
Oh, okay . . . I guess you found some magic rocks in a hat that helps you decode your holy book. The heck is the book for anyway if its all in code? We've all got to culture and history experts now? How often does that change? How plastic can this holy book get?
Mind as well view the bible as a mere curiosity.
People rising from the dead, eternal life . . . doesn't the laws of thermodynamics show the whole book to be preposterous?
There are a lot of folks in churches who don't believe in any of the stories of Jesus and such. They just like the ideas presented. Perhaps a lot of "non-fundie" christians are merely in transition to become church-going nonbelievers.
anyway . . . ramble ramble . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
I've been thinking about these sorts of things a long time, myself. One thing I found is that there are other ways to value the Bible besides thinkig it is has to be either "God's Word" (thereby it has to be perfect because God is perfect) or a "bunch of stories" like you said. When someone says "a bunch of stories" to me it seems to belittle the documents in the Bible. I don't think we need to do that. I don't think you intended that, right?
There are other good options to valuing the literature of the Bible that respect the culture and writers of these documents. After all, it's a book of rich imagery, myth, cultural viewpoints, personal accounts, and yes, there are stories - good ones that teach interesting lessons - and there is much wisdom to be found between those two covers, in my view it is mostly found in Ecclesiates and parts of Proverbs, for instance. But IMO it should not be my only rule of faith and practice, nor should I attribute to it qualities it does not have. And it is unfair of me to expect it to apply to me today in most instances. That's where we run into trouble accusing people of not being believers like they did in the epistles of Paul. But that's another long story...
Anyway, I think one thing we face in this discussion is VPW's tendency to pose EITHER/OR questions. That thinking forces us to make a choice between only those two ways of looking at the Bible. It rules out FOR US any other ways. I know one thing, it certainly intimidated me from investigating other ways and making up my own mind.
This is a big topic, so I'll stop for now.
My intention here is just to shed a little more light on this subject than I did in the article on the front page.
Cheers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
taxicab
"I know that I know that I know that I don't know" and that's given me a lot of freedom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So is it fear that triggers a "nostalgic reaction"? i.e. Realizing one has wasted 20 years on utter nonsense, but not wanting to accept it?
. . .
Also, a lot of the young folks today in twi, who were born in the 80s and 90s, seem to be nostalgic for the 70s. They weren't there. . . . Don't know what to think about that . . . My word is as good as theirs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I don't think that's quite it. That would fall under the umbrella of self delusion. And, that may well be what we are really talking about.
"Triggers" are generally activated by one of the five senses, smell being the most powerful. They're not an intellectual process but rather an emotional response. Fear is an emotion, not one of the five senses, thus it is not a trigger, in and of itself, though it may be the product of a trigger.
Here's an example of a trigger:
When I was young, we would take a bus to get to Public Square. The bus stop at the end was directly in front of a shop that fresh roasted various nuts. The aroma was intoxicating. Furthermore, I always enjoyed my trips downtown. Years later, when I would smell fresh nuts roasting, I would be almost overcome with a sense of "homesickness". It was not based on any particular instance or thought. It was purely emotional. For a long time I could not for the life of me understand why I had that reaction to fresh roasting nuts. Then, coincidentally, I happened to take a bus that deposited me right in front of that very same shop. At that moment, I was able to intellectualize something that had only, up to that point, been an emotional experience.
So, long story made short---- Fear of wasted time may very well be an important factor but I would hesitate to classify it as a "trigger".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"reruns" of PFAL would be a trigger then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Very possible.
You have sights, sounds and the smell of stretched coffee all rolled into one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
oh heck
two wayfers just talking to each other . . . in or out . . .
or even I say something to them . . .
or if they see something on TV . . .
pretty much anything.
kinda scary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
Thank you for writing that I believe it will help people alot.
I wonder did we all
that were in (twi)feel like that as far the need to Serve thru TWI and WHY were we
so "committed to just twi" and nothing else.
It just makes me feel cold chills thinking of the subtle evil behind the candy coated
labyrinth cult wanna be christianity and I am talking 30 yrs later!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Now I'm pretty angry.
I'd like to have the money I handed over......I thought it would be a blessing used for teaching others about God Almighty. Instead, much of it is feathering rfr's mattress (figuratively).
I would like to have some of the time back too. I would have loved working with my handbell choir, continuing my own music lessons, being at my children's games etc on a more consistent basis. And I surely would have been better all around if I had more than 4 1/2 hours sleep half the time.
But the past is the past. It's on the other side of the gate and I can't go there again. But what I can do is learn a better way.
So I have some questions:
What do we do now with speaking in tongues?
what about some of the manifestations?
Was there even a resurrection?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Krys, I understand your frustration. Within the approximate 10 years to get a Bachelor's degree and 3 colleges/Universities, If I had never heard of Victor Paul Wierwille or The Way International, I could have gotten married, had a Master's degree in Organ, had children, and possibly had a decent Church job as Organist/Director of Music here in the Hickory area(decent salary). No, I just had to attend ECU during the energy/gasoline crisis, traveling 7-9 hours from Western NC(and it was another 2 hours to the beach). If God wanted me to have an academic hobby in Biblical Research, I could have found some of TWI's materials such as Bullinger,Torrey,Cliffe,Kenyon,Lamsa(and Errico),Pilai,Freeman, Prince, Albert Benjamin Simpson, and others in Christian Family Bookstore. I wasted nearly a decade chasing TWI and causing my family/other relatives and friends heartache(which may have contributed to their health problems and early deaths).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
These are honest questions and since I started all this whirlwind, I'll try to say something here...
I think each person would want to address them on their own. They are, IMO, matters of faith not reason. I venture to say that some people form beliefs about them without necessarily accepting the idea that the Bible is "perfect." To me, they are matters to which theology poses answers.
Theology (the study of the nature of God and religious issues) is a big topic with a long history, and since I am not a theologian, I can't offer answers to these questions.
What I can offer is my view: that there are no pat answers.
The challenge is to admit we're always taking someone's word (for the most part) for whatever "answers" come our way about anything.
We trust a lot of things for which we do not have "proof" or understand (except maybe you scientists out there) - like electricity. We can't see it, hear it, smell it, taste it or touch it (hope not) but it is real and we rely on it.
For me, trusting what even VPW used to call "the still small voice" inside (isn't it ironic that even HE used to encourage us to do that?) is what's been the best help to me over the years post-TWI.
Willima James masterpiece, The Varieties of Religious Experience, is a good source for thinking about these issues, too. It's huge, though. I've only read some of it but found it helpful...and comforting.
Enjoy life! We only get one (as far as I know
)
Cheers!
Charlene
Edited by penworksLink 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.