"There may be discrepancies and errors in the sacred writings, but those truths that God wished to see included in the Scripture, and which are important to our salvation, are placed there without error... the Bible is not inerrant in detail, but God has ensured that no substantial errors, which mislead us about the nature of salvation, are to be found in Scripture."
The "reality" is that the Bible is a book that's been cobbled together from copies of copies of copies, ad infinitum. The inerrancy line of thought embraces the concept that God not only inspired their content but their very assemblage, as well. There is a similar line of thinking that is used to rationalize Wierwille's plagiarism. ("Yeah, VPW stole the materials from Stiles, Bullinger, Kenyon, etc., but God told him how to put it all together.") I don't personally share that opinion on either inerrancy of the Bible or Wierwille's works.
There may be discrepancies and errors in the sacred writings, but those truths that God wished to see included in the Scripture, and which are important to our salvation, are placed there without error... the Bible is not inerrant in detail, but God has ensured that no substantial errors, which mislead us about the nature of salvation, are to be found in Scripture.
... The Good Reverend forgets the following question. How does one define 'substantial errors', as opposed to 'unsubstantial errors', ... hhmmmm?
This is still where all those denominations and sects come into play. Denominations and sects that contradict each other in some shape or form.
The following may be of interest concerning "inerrancy of the Bible", found at Wikipedia.com:
The Reverend Professor (John Stephen) Keith Ward (born 22 August 1938) is a British cleric, philosopher, theologian, and scholar. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and (since 1972) an ordained priest in the Church of England. He was a Canon of Christ Church, Oxford until 2003.
Comparative theology and the interplay between science and faith and are two of his main topics of interest.
He said:
There may be discrepancies and errors in the sacred writings, but those truths that God wished to see included in the Scripture, and which are important to our salvation, are placed there without error... the Bible is not inerrant in detail, but God has ensured that no substantial errors, which mislead us about the nature of salvation, are to be found in Scripture.
Any thoughts on this?
SPEC
If that were the case, then there wouldn't be all the schools of thought about the nature of salvation. In other words, what he said was merely an opinion. If the bible is the word of God and God is sovereign, then it would be reasonable to expect that he could and would ensure that his word is kept intact. This lack of intactness causes me to question what its level of authority should be in my life. The only way one can view the bible as being error-free even in the larger details is (IMO) to disengage from reality of what is written on the pages. I think if you practice disengaging from that reality long enough that eventually you stop reengaging. The other interesting thing about inerrancy is that only protestant sects expect a rational view of God and only literalists and fundamentalists believe in an inerrant bible that is somehow rational as well. The various branches of the Catholic church and earlier sects had no such conditions tied to their belief. As such, inerrancy and rationalism are a relatively recent occurrence0 and both add a level of difficulty to the belief process (imo).
For example: salvation from the gospels:
You can think you have it, but never do
You can have it, but wish you didn't
Someone who grabs it at the last minute is just as saved as one who never strayed (where's the justice in that?) according to Jesus, yet we are also told in a song that the greatest treasure remains for those who gladly choose him now, which is a direct contradiction from what Jesus taught.
There are various sects that teach that salvation can be lost and others say it can never be lost. Others think its a continual process, while others think that it will never be available to some - that you were chosen or rejected before you were ever born. They're all reading from the same book.
I think that if it were all that simple, there wouldn't be the plethora of opinions.
There may be discrepancies and errors in the sacred writings, but those truths that God wished to see included in the Scripture, and which are important to our salvation, are placed there without error... the Bible is not inerrant in detail, but God has ensured that no substantial errors, which mislead us about the nature of salvation, are to be found in Scripture.
Any thoughts on this?
SPEC
Just to clear this up a bit, folks...
By posting the above quote (by Keith Ward), I was NOT indicating I agreed with him, although it may have been assumed as such.
My purpose was merely to generate more feedback ("Any thoughts on this?"), which is what is happening as this topic of discussion continues.
The larger context of this dialogue concerns those who are "questioning the value of Biblical research done by The Way International" (as first indicated by Penworks), and precisely why they do so.
... The Good Reverend forgets the following question. How does one define 'substantial errors', as opposed to 'unsubstantial errors', ... hhmmmm?
IMO, the significance of that statement is this: There is always someone in charge making that determination - which errors are substantial and which ones are not, which word to use in translating a Greek word into English and which other ones in the "range of meaning" to ignore. IMO, this is a subjective process. In TWI, the original person in charge of making that determination was VPW. Then Walt*r Cumm*ns in Research got involved with textual studies to help substantiate the inerrancy stance of TWI. He went to Germany in one attempt.
The problem for me became: The "accuracy" of "The Word" was what someone "in charge" ended up deciding. To me, it is still someone's interpretation and interpretations can be influenced by a number things going on with the interpreter.
When I was "witnessed to" in 1971, I was told that TWI was always open to learning more about the Bible. They even said the ministry could and would change when it learned more.
This appealed to me.
These statements are printed on a "For Those Who Want to Know" handout sheet:
"This is what research is all about - working, studying the whole Bible to see how it all fits together. Part of research is not to find something new in the Word, but to establish in your own heart the inherent and inerrant accuracy of the truths of God's Word for yourself."
Next paragraph:
"As a research and teaching ministry, we are always open to learn more about the Bible. The ministry has the freedom to change and grow when something new is discovered in the Bible. No dogmas are imposed on an individual. The research is made available to those who wish to utilize it."
Two of my (notice MY) questions about the above statements include:
1. How open was/is TWI? - My experience was that you could not usually question things like inerrancy or teachings already in print or taped or on video.
2. Who decides what doctrines to change and why? - I saw only VPW, and a few select individuals do this as they worked as a group, but in the end, while VPW was alive, he had the final answer. Sometimes that meant he appealed to his "scope of The Word" after 40 some years of study, not to any text in existence.
After he died, as far as the Way Corps teachings and Magazine articles go, the "accuracy of the Word" became a team effort of the research team (some with degrees, some without), with Walt*r Cumm*ns making the final calls, even when some input from others seemed workable.
The research system was set up like this because W.C. was the one VPW put in charge of research. During the course of this process to determine the "Literal translations according to usage" I began to wonder where this put TWI as far as claiming it could get back to the "accuracy" of The Word. Which would show inerrancy.
Those are just a few thoughts to add to the topic.
One last item: In the PFAL book, page 5, we see VPW's habit of using the terms "the Bible" "scripture," and "The Word" or "God's Word" interchangeably.
To me, that is a MAJOR issue.
In my view, this got very confusing. One reason is that there are many different Bible versions, some with different canons. Which one has the God-breathed canon? I think this subject has been hashed out here by several of us.
These statements are printed on a "For Those Who Want to Know" handout sheet:
"This is what research is all about - working, studying the whole Bible to see how it all fits together. Part of research is not to find something new in the Word, but to establish in your own heart the inherent and inerrant accuracy of the truths of God's Word for yourself."
Next paragraph:
"As a research and teaching ministry, we are always open to learn more about the Bible. The ministry has the freedom to change and grow when something new is discovered in the Bible. No dogmas are imposed on an individual. The research is made available to those who wish to utilize it."
Is it me, or did those 2 paragraphs cancel each other out?
Sometimes that meant he appealed to his "scope of The Word" after 40 some years of study, not to any text in existence.
Martindale and his henchmen continued this practice.
In response to his "Original Sin of Mankind" teaching in the WayAP class I broke down his contentions about the supposed sexual connotations of various words showing his error. Our region coordinator at the time, T#m H#rr#cks, replied that the text might not back it up, but it must be true "based on what we know about homosexuality".
In my opinion, the claims that TWI was research oriented was thrown out there to draw people in, and ignored when actual research got in the way of Wierwille's pulled-it-out-of-his-@ss theology.
When I was "witnessed to" in 1971, I was told that TWI was always open to learning more about the Bible. They even said the ministry could and would change when it learned more.
This appealed to me.
This is how I remember it, as well.
In fact, Wierwille, himself,stated, somewhere, that he had recently changed his stance on the number of days between the ascension and Pentecost, due to new research. I think he did that for "show". When people would question us about contradictions, we would parrot back this same line and incident as if it was proof we were willing to change our stance.
One last item: In the PFAL book, page 5, we see VPW's habit of using the terms "the Bible" "scripture," and "The Word" or "God's Word" interchangeably.
To me, that is a MAJOR issue.
In my view, this got very confusing. One reason is that there are many different Bible versions, some with different canons. Which one has the God-breathed canon? I think this subject has been hashed out here by several of us.
PFAL syllabus/ page #1
THE WORD OF GOD IS THE WILL OF GOD
John 10:10
THE GREATEST SECRET IN THE WORLD
THE BIBLE IS THE
REVEALED WORD
AND
WILL OF GOD
Listening with a purpose/ session #1/ question #1
Q. What is the greatest secret in the world today?
A. The Bible is the revealed word and will of God.
Page #2
The Word means what it says and says what it means.
The Word has a purpose for everything it says, the way in which it is said, where it is said, how it is said, to whom it is said, when it is said.
Page #6
The Bible as The Word of God is "God-breathed"
Page #10
GOD is the LOGOS-THE WORD
CHRIST is the LOGOS-IN PERSON
BIBLE is the LOGOS- in WRITING
with, PROS= together with yet distinctly independent of
Page #11
The Bible is the Living Word in action.
Page #12
It takes the Master's place in us through the Renewed Mind.
The following are two excerpts from a handout by TWI, seen in a recent post by Charlene:
In one paragraph:
Part of research is not to find something new in the Word,
In the very next paragraph:
The ministry has the freedom to change and grow when something new is discovered in the Bible
About this blatant contradiction:
Is it me, or did those 2 paragraphs cancel each other out?
SPOT ON, Tzaia!
I once looked up some facts on the sale of many of TWI’s holdings as they were liquidating a bit for needed ready capital. I wasn’t very surprised when I noticed that among the first things to go were The Way College of Biblical Research (Emporia, KS) along with its sister facility, The Way College of Biblical Research (Indiana campus). They always did seem to put a low priority on research!
And even long before all that, the old "BRC" (Biblical Research Center) had to give way to The VPW Word Over the World Victor Paul Wierwille Prevailing Word Auditorium just down the road with its million-dollar cameras, etc.
In mentioning the Listening With a Purpose Questions from PFAL, Waysider just reminded me of an incident you all might find interesting. Please excuse me if I am deviating from the TOPIC somewhat with my ancedote - I just want you all to be amused...
I was in a class as a repeat grad once and question #5 from Session 1 was asked by the class leader: “What is the difference between apistia and apeitheia?”
I was frantically waving my hand and was called upon! I promptly (and very boldly) stated, “I don’t know – and I don’t care!”
Right away many were chuckling and within a few moments the laughter grew to include the whole class as they were catching on to my “little quip” – that is, except for the leader!
You should have seen the GLARE he had been giving me as if to say, “How dare you to disrupt MY class!” But very soon, he understood it as well and joined in the merriment.
Ironically though, after all the years since then my answer still remains the same: How does TWI differentiate between apistia and apeitheia?
The ministry has the freedom to change and grow when something new is discovered in the Bible
They couldn't find something new in the Bible if it literally jumped up and bit them on their large bohunkus. They're too d@mn busy making "new policy".
Penworks – great article – the part about fundamentalism & TWI and the baby/bathwater/TWI's idea of research resonated with me. Since I left TWI I've picked up a hobby of reading different systematic theologies. One of the major differences between my ol' stupefying "alma mater" and a decent systematic theology is the lack of honesty & humility in TWI's theology.
humility - Besides analyzing the biblical data, a good systematic theology will explore historical and philosophical resources. What did Luther say about this or that – or what did others say - Calvin, Augustine, the early church fathers, Aquinas, Kant, Kierkegaard, Barth, etc. – how did they interpret the passage or view the subject? Humility is what enables us to learn from others. I think it was Sir Isaac Newton who said something like "if I've seen farther than others it's becasue I've stood on the shoulders of giants."
honesty - Being upfront about the process of developing a theology is a big deal in my book. vp had this dubious "the Bible interprets itself" thing going on [a premise I find absolutely absurd now] partnered up with the desire to pronounce "thus saith the Lord" on everything. Whereas, the systematic theologies I like are straightforward in their approach of a subject – after detailing the technical data [original languages, grammar, syntax, etc.] they usually convey to the reader in one way or another when they're stepping off into a more cerebral territory – getting into deductions, inferences, implications, extrapolations & speculations. I've made the point on another thread about vp in PFAL suggesting what he wrote was God-breathed - distinguishing himself above theologians folks are familiar with - a double whammy lacking honesty & humility for sure.
Imho I think the intellect is the number one research tool in any field – the mind being the navigator in charting out the explorer's map. The way I see it now, I joined TWI and they handed me a theological map – it had one little island with the capitol being New Knoxville – surrounded by a large body of water with "here be dragons" written everywhere. Currently my theological map has me on a peninsula – and there's lots of places with interesting names "I don't know", "Not sure", "Maybe", "Probably", "Could be Related", "I don't believe that", "This may have something to do with God", etc., these names are penciled in and I may never commit some to ink. I don't worship the Bible anymore either – but view it as a means to an end – knowing God.
~~
Tzaia – great catch on the contradictory statements of research!
Spectrum – I love the session 5 class leader question/your answer incident! That's so funny & clever. Wish you had 2 cameras rolling at the time – one on the class and one on the class leader. I'm thinking we could whip something up that would go along the lines of Tzaia's observation.
We'd make a documentary from it – with a split screen and narrative voice-over by James Earl Jones, saying "Now on the left screen we see the enjoyable reaction of the students to a new and humorous way of presenting Greek definitions. On the right we have a seasoned grad's response – notice that the theologicalsclerosis is in an advanced stage. Even when presented with familiar TWI-sanctioned material but in a new format, the seasoned grad exhibits a distinctly negative reaction. Take note - the effectiveness of theological hardening by TWI's imposed dogmas evidenced in this footage does not represent an extreme case - but a typical case."
I do realize what I am about to post has no reference to this topic, but since everyone seemed to enjoy my first ancedote, here is another:
Attempting to be the class clown in school did not always work very well. I met my match with Mr. Palmer (a math instructor) on the very first day of my 9th grade trigonometry class…
He had written on the blackboard all of the trig functions we would be learning during the semester. (sine, cosine, tangent, etc.) The whole class seemed baffled at the sight of this strange stuff!
Having drawn a telephone pole on the board, he posed the question: “Suppose you do not know the height of this pole, but with a sextant you can measure the angle at which a sun-ray is cutting across the top of it – and with a tape measure you can determine the length of its shadow on the ground.”
He continued, saying, “Now, with this information and what you will be learning this year, you will find that the “tangent function” will work just fine in solving this problem.”, pointing to it among the myriads of other stuff on the blackboard.
He plugged in some numbers and gave the answer. We were all stunned and amazed. Then he said, “Are there any questions?” Sitting in the front row I raised my hand, being ready to be cute!
I said, “Mr Palmer – Wouldn’t it have been simpler to just put on a set of gaffs and climb the pole with a tape measure?” The whole class was laughing, and I was in my element!
But he quickly replied, “And I suppose, Mr Elliott, in trying to ascertain the distance to the nearest star, you would suggest to NASA that we put a tape measure on the back of a rocket ship – is that correct, Mr Elliott?”
That cut me to the bone, for now the class was all laughing at ME as I embarrassingly slumped down in my chair! (He never had any more “problems” with me the rest of the year…I was a model-student from then on…
I took the class for the specific reason of learning to understand and study the bible, and to learn to speak in tongues.. That was it .. nothing more than that...
and of course I learned to speak in tongues.. but the other thing I learned early on in my time with TWI was that no one and I do mean no one was actually studying the bible.. they were studying PFAL.
and anytime some one (okay Me, but I am pretty sure I was not the only one who got treated like this) mentioned trying to do any independent reading of the bible, or attempting to study a subject that meant some thing to you personally... you were shot down and told you were too immature (in the Word) and would be best served by studying the fundamentals of PFAL...go read the blue book, you don't really know how to study the bible, and you will mess it up and learn it wrong.
This really irked me, and at first I followed along but it became evident to me in a relatively short time that we were not trying to use the newly acquired skills we had to actually study the bible but we were just repeating PFAL over and over again... And if you didn't want to be yelled at or chastised or told how incapable you were of being able to read the bible on your own, you had best keep any thing you were trying to do, to yourself.
IT was an exercise in futility... take the class to learn to study but don't you dare actually study.
and anytime some one (okay Me, but I am pretty sure I was not the only one who got treated like this) mentioned trying to do any independent reading of the bible, or attempting to study a subject that meant some thing to you personally... you were shot down and told you were too immature (in the Word) and would be best served by studying the fundamentals of PFAL...go read the blue book, you don't really know how to study the bible, and you will mess it up and learn it wrong.
IT was an exercise in futility... take the class to learn to study but don't you dare actually study.
It's much easier to understand the reasoning behind this thinking when you finally accept that the whole thing was simply a veiled, business driven MLM scheme designed to generate profits for VPW.
I took the class for the specific reason of learning to understand and study the bible, and to learn to speak in tongues.. That was it .. nothing more than that...
and of course I learned to speak in tongues.. but the other thing I learned early on in my time with TWI was that no one and I do mean no one was actually studying the bible.. they were studying PFAL.
and anytime some one (okay Me, but I am pretty sure I was not the only one who got treated like this) mentioned trying to do any independent reading of the bible, or attempting to study a subject that meant some thing to you personally... you were shot down and told you were too immature (in the Word) and would be best served by studying the fundamentals of PFAL...go read the blue book, you don't really know how to study the bible, and you will mess it up and learn it wrong.
This really irked me, and at first I followed along but it became evident to me in a relatively short time that we were not trying to use the newly acquired skills we had to actually study the bible but we were just repeating PFAL over and over again... And if you didn't want to be yelled at or chastised or told how incapable you were of being able to read the bible on your own, you had best keep any thing you were trying to do, to yourself.
IT was an exercise in futility... take the class to learn to study but don't you dare actually study.
Right on Leafy! (Except I was ONE who did study independently)
I did so to see for myself if what they were teaching actually made sense. Some did, but some didn't. It didn't seem to mean a whole great deal to me to find errors in their work, realizing they are human also and are prone to making mistakes at times, as are we all. When I saw MY mistakes, I just changed my mind. And it felt good to realize I was growing and learning and improving.
Yet YOU WERE RIGHT...when I dared to bring up things which didn't actually ring true to my heart, I was told precisely what you said -- "Go read your blue book!"
It's rather funny that when I tried to show them their error with LOGIC they couldn't refute, were they meek to hear and change? Did they try to honestly continue debating the issue with EVEN BETTER logic to prove I was yet wrong...or even compliment me on my effort? HELL NO!!! Instead, I was told that I had a devil-spirit called PRIDE ... and a few other things too!
Though I didn't believe their accusations, I acted "meek" and just took the crap so as not to rock the boat. And although my demeaner is not to raise my voice in anger, there were times I had to try that approach when I felt there was no other way...perhaps then they would listen. But to my surprise, they yelled back EVEN LOUDER! (they should study Proverbs INSTEAD of their f***ing blue book! -- please excuse my language -- I get "irked" as well.)
Why I stayed for over 30 years is a matter of my own heart. I tend to be extremely patient, forgiving and understanding...perhaps moreso than I ought...for even then my "buddies" falsely considered me "gullible". (I forgave them in my heart as well -- Ha!)
I guess I figured that eventually somebody with "clout" (Corps, Clergy, etc.) would "discover" those same things themselves and all would be well in the long run.
But that never happened! I eventually had to leave them because of it. It's rather ironic how the intriguing idea of being part of a Biblical RESEARCH ministry first lured me into The Way, but it was my own RESEARCH which led me out! (Ha!)
Please forgive me now for what I am about to say, because it is just too VAST to cover in proper detail -- I had made a "discovery" which to the best of my knowledge and searching the net has proven to be "unknown in the world". I am in the process of publishing a book about it (my first) which will be coming out in a few months.
I had tried in vain over the years to share this wonderful thing with them, but they would not hear. I supposed for a time that somehow the "enemy" was keeping them from seeing it. But over time, I realized that it was perhaps God himself who blinded their eyes to it, no matter how hard I tried to impart it. I suspect now that if they had been allowed to see and appreciate it for themselves, they would have STOLEN it from me, just as they have plagerized just about everything else! (And I am thankful for the many posts along those lines here at GS...my eyes were opened to their nonsense...and I had a nice cup of coffee and a piece of pie to boot!)
I thank God for his assistance in this matter all along, despite my ignorance of TWI leadership's true agenda.
You are most likely correct as well Waysider...when you said "the whole thing was simply a veiled, business driven MLM scheme designed to generate profits for VPW."
SPEC
:)
PS: The name of my book will most likely be "Genesis One: God's Table of Contents."
Hey Spec.. you are right and there were actually a few people doing independent study of the bible.. Some at HQ and some out in the twigs but if they tried to share anything that did not match up with PFAL they were shot down or told they were wrong or booted from TWI ..
so Yeah I overstated the facts a bit, but one thing is certain most people in TWI were discouraged from studying on their own.
And I was like you I bought that whole bs line that they were a research ministry and would change if some one brought a new perspective to a teaching.
one side benefit of getting involved in TWI is I can smell a snow job coming now! <_<
Charlene, Beautiful article one of the best I've read here thank you for publishing it.
To equate a book of literature with a book of mathmatical formulas is not an axiom
[Who] would ask to have proof for the non-existence of something[?] Atheists like me believe in the non-existence of god, not because there *is* proof of the non-existence of god, but that there *isn't* proof of the existence of god.
A scientist always starts with I don't know, not I believe, so in research you can't start with an assumption and treat it as evidence for the types of experiments you will and will not do. Saying the in-errancy of the bible in an axiom precludes real serious study because you aren't a skeptic, you are a true believer the true researcher is skeptical even of their own findings that's why there are so many peer review journals in science. Where are the peer review journals in TWI or religion at large?
The assumption that what the bible says about itself is in any way reliable with out being tested is crazy, go back and read the first two chapters of Genesis and really try to have no preconceived notions about it. Does it make sense? Truly? Does it contain no contradictions? Really? The first two chapters of Genesis is so incomprehensible I can't believe it isn't filed under fiction 200 years ago or at least poetry. Then the story of Noah, pure bunk! Every animal by two? Check out how many animals species there are including insects, between 3 and 30 million! So collect 6 to 60 million animals insects included, house them and feed them for a couple months? The Ark would have to be size of 20 cruise ships unless you are Dr. Who and have a TARDIS, and this was all to be done by 8 people? Come on! get a freaking clue!
Seth
First, I have to wonder if Garth thinks he lives in a world without axioms, where somehow everything can be proven.
Garth, do you believe that X=X? Prove it!
Do you believe that X+Y=Y+X? Prove it!
These are just basic mathematical axioms which most high-schoolers know. (And, at least when I was in school, they were taught AS AXIOMS.)
Do you believe that God exists? Prove it!
Do you believe that God does not exist? Prove it!
Again, either of these statements, if accepted (and since they are mutually exclusive, one or the other must be true), is an axiom.
From a set of axioms, logical conclusions can be drawn; but there are no "first principles" which are not axioms.
For me, it is axiomatic that if the Bible is God's Word, then it is inerrant. (I suppose the actual axiom is that God is inerrant.) A conclusion from this axiom is that if I accept the Biblical assertion of Jesus Christ as God's Son, I must also accept that Moses parted the Red Sea. Others may pick and choose what particular parts of the Bible they wish to believe, but there are axioms underlying any such choices.
So, perhaps I should re-state my thesis: ASSUMING the axiom of an inerrant Bible, the fundamentalist methods used to interpret it (as per Bullinger and many others) are logical. Feel free to disagree with my axiom, but don't pretend that you don't have others.
To equate a book of literature with a book of mathmatical formulas is not an axiom it's blind stupidity.
The assumption that what the bible says about itself is in any way reliable with out being tested is crazy, ...
Seth
Glad you liked the article. The Bible is a book of literature, as you pointed out, but the interesting aspect of it to me is that it is an anthology - a group of separate writings. They don't constitute a book in the sense we usually approach a book. The Bible is like about 60 books bound together. No statement can be made in it that speaks about it as a whole since it was not written as a whole. There's no ONE writer. There are many. So, IMO, VPW's claim that the Bible can even say anything about itself is erroneous.
I should have stood up in the PFAL class and said, "Wait, show me the verse that says the Bible is God's Word."
I think the typical answer was John 17:17, "Thy word is truth." BUT wait! VPW took that verse out of context, which was something he accused others of incorrectly doing.
That verse is part of a prayer that the gospel writer recorded as Jesus was praying to his Father. It is not referring to the Bible, for heaven's sake. THERE WAS NO BIBLE YET.
Hi Charlene, It's wonderful to see all the thoughtful responses to this blog.
Many years ago I remember being very moved by Oral Roberts rendition of "The Red Thread". Wierwille did it as well. Recently I ran across it again and now I believe that people can make the Bible say anything they want it to say. I thought I would post it here for your comments as well as everyone else's comments. Enjoy,
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
spectrum49
And, in your opinion Waysider, what is this "reality"? (that is, how do you believe the Bible came to exist?)
I truly meant no harm.
SPEC
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Re:
"There may be discrepancies and errors in the sacred writings, but those truths that God wished to see included in the Scripture, and which are important to our salvation, are placed there without error... the Bible is not inerrant in detail, but God has ensured that no substantial errors, which mislead us about the nature of salvation, are to be found in Scripture."
The "reality" is that the Bible is a book that's been cobbled together from copies of copies of copies, ad infinitum. The inerrancy line of thought embraces the concept that God not only inspired their content but their very assemblage, as well. There is a similar line of thinking that is used to rationalize Wierwille's plagiarism. ("Yeah, VPW stole the materials from Stiles, Bullinger, Kenyon, etc., but God told him how to put it all together.") I don't personally share that opinion on either inerrancy of the Bible or Wierwille's works.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... The Good Reverend forgets the following question. How does one define 'substantial errors', as opposed to 'unsubstantial errors', ... hhmmmm?
This is still where all those denominations and sects come into play. Denominations and sects that contradict each other in some shape or form.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
If that were the case, then there wouldn't be all the schools of thought about the nature of salvation. In other words, what he said was merely an opinion. If the bible is the word of God and God is sovereign, then it would be reasonable to expect that he could and would ensure that his word is kept intact. This lack of intactness causes me to question what its level of authority should be in my life. The only way one can view the bible as being error-free even in the larger details is (IMO) to disengage from reality of what is written on the pages. I think if you practice disengaging from that reality long enough that eventually you stop reengaging. The other interesting thing about inerrancy is that only protestant sects expect a rational view of God and only literalists and fundamentalists believe in an inerrant bible that is somehow rational as well. The various branches of the Catholic church and earlier sects had no such conditions tied to their belief. As such, inerrancy and rationalism are a relatively recent occurrence0 and both add a level of difficulty to the belief process (imo).
For example: salvation from the gospels:
You can think you have it, but never do
You can have it, but wish you didn't
Someone who grabs it at the last minute is just as saved as one who never strayed (where's the justice in that?) according to Jesus, yet we are also told in a song that the greatest treasure remains for those who gladly choose him now, which is a direct contradiction from what Jesus taught.
There are various sects that teach that salvation can be lost and others say it can never be lost. Others think its a continual process, while others think that it will never be available to some - that you were chosen or rejected before you were ever born. They're all reading from the same book.
I think that if it were all that simple, there wouldn't be the plethora of opinions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Just to clear this up a bit, folks...
By posting the above quote (by Keith Ward), I was NOT indicating I agreed with him, although it may have been assumed as such.
My purpose was merely to generate more feedback ("Any thoughts on this?"), which is what is happening as this topic of discussion continues.
The larger context of this dialogue concerns those who are "questioning the value of Biblical research done by The Way International" (as first indicated by Penworks), and precisely why they do so.
SPEC
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
IMO, the significance of that statement is this: There is always someone in charge making that determination - which errors are substantial and which ones are not, which word to use in translating a Greek word into English and which other ones in the "range of meaning" to ignore. IMO, this is a subjective process. In TWI, the original person in charge of making that determination was VPW. Then Walt*r Cumm*ns in Research got involved with textual studies to help substantiate the inerrancy stance of TWI. He went to Germany in one attempt.
The problem for me became: The "accuracy" of "The Word" was what someone "in charge" ended up deciding. To me, it is still someone's interpretation and interpretations can be influenced by a number things going on with the interpreter.
When I was "witnessed to" in 1971, I was told that TWI was always open to learning more about the Bible. They even said the ministry could and would change when it learned more.
This appealed to me.
These statements are printed on a "For Those Who Want to Know" handout sheet:
"This is what research is all about - working, studying the whole Bible to see how it all fits together. Part of research is not to find something new in the Word, but to establish in your own heart the inherent and inerrant accuracy of the truths of God's Word for yourself."
Next paragraph:
"As a research and teaching ministry, we are always open to learn more about the Bible. The ministry has the freedom to change and grow when something new is discovered in the Bible. No dogmas are imposed on an individual. The research is made available to those who wish to utilize it."
Two of my (notice MY) questions about the above statements include:
1. How open was/is TWI? - My experience was that you could not usually question things like inerrancy or teachings already in print or taped or on video.
2. Who decides what doctrines to change and why? - I saw only VPW, and a few select individuals do this as they worked as a group, but in the end, while VPW was alive, he had the final answer. Sometimes that meant he appealed to his "scope of The Word" after 40 some years of study, not to any text in existence.
After he died, as far as the Way Corps teachings and Magazine articles go, the "accuracy of the Word" became a team effort of the research team (some with degrees, some without), with Walt*r Cumm*ns making the final calls, even when some input from others seemed workable.
The research system was set up like this because W.C. was the one VPW put in charge of research. During the course of this process to determine the "Literal translations according to usage" I began to wonder where this put TWI as far as claiming it could get back to the "accuracy" of The Word. Which would show inerrancy.
Those are just a few thoughts to add to the topic.
One last item: In the PFAL book, page 5, we see VPW's habit of using the terms "the Bible" "scripture," and "The Word" or "God's Word" interchangeably.
To me, that is a MAJOR issue.
In my view, this got very confusing. One reason is that there are many different Bible versions, some with different canons. Which one has the God-breathed canon? I think this subject has been hashed out here by several of us.
Peace
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Is it me, or did those 2 paragraphs cancel each other out?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
In response to his "Original Sin of Mankind" teaching in the WayAP class I broke down his contentions about the supposed sexual connotations of various words showing his error. Our region coordinator at the time, T#m H#rr#cks, replied that the text might not back it up, but it must be true "based on what we know about homosexuality".
In my opinion, the claims that TWI was research oriented was thrown out there to draw people in, and ignored when actual research got in the way of Wierwille's pulled-it-out-of-his-@ss theology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
This is how I remember it, as well.
In fact, Wierwille, himself,stated, somewhere, that he had recently changed his stance on the number of days between the ascension and Pentecost, due to new research. I think he did that for "show". When people would question us about contradictions, we would parrot back this same line and incident as if it was proof we were willing to change our stance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
PFAL syllabus/ page #1
THE WORD OF GOD IS THE WILL OF GOD
John 10:10
THE GREATEST SECRET IN THE WORLD
THE BIBLE IS THE
REVEALED WORD
AND
WILL OF GOD
Listening with a purpose/ session #1/ question #1
Q. What is the greatest secret in the world today?
A. The Bible is the revealed word and will of God.
Page #2
The Word means what it says and says what it means.
The Word has a purpose for everything it says, the way in which it is said, where it is said, how it is said, to whom it is said, when it is said.
Page #6
The Bible as The Word of God is "God-breathed"
Page #10
GOD is the LOGOS-THE WORD
CHRIST is the LOGOS-IN PERSON
BIBLE is the LOGOS- in WRITING
with, PROS= together with yet distinctly independent of
Page #11
The Bible is the Living Word in action.
Page #12
It takes the Master's place in us through the Renewed Mind.
****************************************************
There you have it----inerrancy and parity are clearly major focal points of PFAL.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
The following are two excerpts from a handout by TWI, seen in a recent post by Charlene:
In one paragraph:
Part of research is not to find something new in the Word,
In the very next paragraph:
The ministry has the freedom to change and grow when something new is discovered in the Bible
About this blatant contradiction:
SPOT ON, Tzaia!
I once looked up some facts on the sale of many of TWI’s holdings as they were liquidating a bit for needed ready capital. I wasn’t very surprised when I noticed that among the first things to go were The Way College of Biblical Research (Emporia, KS) along with its sister facility, The Way College of Biblical Research (Indiana campus). They always did seem to put a low priority on research!
And even long before all that, the old "BRC" (Biblical Research Center) had to give way to The VPW Word Over the World Victor Paul Wierwille Prevailing Word Auditorium just down the road with its million-dollar cameras, etc.
Research at TWI? Bah, humbug!
SPEC
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
In mentioning the Listening With a Purpose Questions from PFAL, Waysider just reminded me of an incident you all might find interesting. Please excuse me if I am deviating from the TOPIC somewhat with my ancedote - I just want you all to be amused...
I was in a class as a repeat grad once and question #5 from Session 1 was asked by the class leader: “What is the difference between apistia and apeitheia?”
I was frantically waving my hand and was called upon! I promptly (and very boldly) stated, “I don’t know – and I don’t care!”
Right away many were chuckling and within a few moments the laughter grew to include the whole class as they were catching on to my “little quip” – that is, except for the leader!
You should have seen the GLARE he had been giving me as if to say, “How dare you to disrupt MY class!” But very soon, he understood it as well and joined in the merriment.
Ironically though, after all the years since then my answer still remains the same: How does TWI differentiate between apistia and apeitheia?
"I DON’T KNOW - AND I DON’T CARE!"
SPEC
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
They couldn't find something new in the Bible if it literally jumped up and bit them on their large bohunkus. They're too d@mn busy making "new policy".
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Now that there's some mighty funny stuff!!
:P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Coming from you Waysider, I feel honored! And if I had a hat like yours, I'd tip it your way as well!
Mel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Penworks – great article – the part about fundamentalism & TWI and the baby/bathwater/TWI's idea of research resonated with me. Since I left TWI I've picked up a hobby of reading different systematic theologies. One of the major differences between my ol' stupefying "alma mater" and a decent systematic theology is the lack of honesty & humility in TWI's theology.
humility - Besides analyzing the biblical data, a good systematic theology will explore historical and philosophical resources. What did Luther say about this or that – or what did others say - Calvin, Augustine, the early church fathers, Aquinas, Kant, Kierkegaard, Barth, etc. – how did they interpret the passage or view the subject? Humility is what enables us to learn from others. I think it was Sir Isaac Newton who said something like "if I've seen farther than others it's becasue I've stood on the shoulders of giants."
honesty - Being upfront about the process of developing a theology is a big deal in my book. vp had this dubious "the Bible interprets itself" thing going on [a premise I find absolutely absurd now] partnered up with the desire to pronounce "thus saith the Lord" on everything. Whereas, the systematic theologies I like are straightforward in their approach of a subject – after detailing the technical data [original languages, grammar, syntax, etc.] they usually convey to the reader in one way or another when they're stepping off into a more cerebral territory – getting into deductions, inferences, implications, extrapolations & speculations. I've made the point on another thread about vp in PFAL suggesting what he wrote was God-breathed - distinguishing himself above theologians folks are familiar with - a double whammy lacking honesty & humility for sure.
Imho I think the intellect is the number one research tool in any field – the mind being the navigator in charting out the explorer's map. The way I see it now, I joined TWI and they handed me a theological map – it had one little island with the capitol being New Knoxville – surrounded by a large body of water with "here be dragons" written everywhere. Currently my theological map has me on a peninsula – and there's lots of places with interesting names "I don't know", "Not sure", "Maybe", "Probably", "Could be Related", "I don't believe that", "This may have something to do with God", etc., these names are penciled in and I may never commit some to ink. I don't worship the Bible anymore either – but view it as a means to an end – knowing God.
~~
Tzaia – great catch on the contradictory statements of research!
Spectrum – I love the session 5 class leader question/your answer incident! That's so funny & clever. Wish you had 2 cameras rolling at the time – one on the class and one on the class leader. I'm thinking we could whip something up that would go along the lines of Tzaia's observation.
We'd make a documentary from it – with a split screen and narrative voice-over by James Earl Jones, saying "Now on the left screen we see the enjoyable reaction of the students to a new and humorous way of presenting Greek definitions. On the right we have a seasoned grad's response – notice that the theologicalsclerosis is in an advanced stage. Even when presented with familiar TWI-sanctioned material but in a new format, the seasoned grad exhibits a distinctly negative reaction. Take note - the effectiveness of theological hardening by TWI's imposed dogmas evidenced in this footage does not represent an extreme case - but a typical case."
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
I do realize what I am about to post has no reference to this topic, but since everyone seemed to enjoy my first ancedote, here is another:
Attempting to be the class clown in school did not always work very well. I met my match with Mr. Palmer (a math instructor) on the very first day of my 9th grade trigonometry class…
He had written on the blackboard all of the trig functions we would be learning during the semester. (sine, cosine, tangent, etc.) The whole class seemed baffled at the sight of this strange stuff!
Having drawn a telephone pole on the board, he posed the question: “Suppose you do not know the height of this pole, but with a sextant you can measure the angle at which a sun-ray is cutting across the top of it – and with a tape measure you can determine the length of its shadow on the ground.”
He continued, saying, “Now, with this information and what you will be learning this year, you will find that the “tangent function” will work just fine in solving this problem.”, pointing to it among the myriads of other stuff on the blackboard.
He plugged in some numbers and gave the answer. We were all stunned and amazed. Then he said, “Are there any questions?” Sitting in the front row I raised my hand, being ready to be cute!
I said, “Mr Palmer – Wouldn’t it have been simpler to just put on a set of gaffs and climb the pole with a tape measure?” The whole class was laughing, and I was in my element!
But he quickly replied, “And I suppose, Mr Elliott, in trying to ascertain the distance to the nearest star, you would suggest to NASA that we put a tape measure on the back of a rocket ship – is that correct, Mr Elliott?”
That cut me to the bone, for now the class was all laughing at ME as I embarrassingly slumped down in my chair! (He never had any more “problems” with me the rest of the year…I was a model-student from then on…
SPEC
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
I took the class for the specific reason of learning to understand and study the bible, and to learn to speak in tongues.. That was it .. nothing more than that...
and of course I learned to speak in tongues.. but the other thing I learned early on in my time with TWI was that no one and I do mean no one was actually studying the bible.. they were studying PFAL.
and anytime some one (okay Me, but I am pretty sure I was not the only one who got treated like this) mentioned trying to do any independent reading of the bible, or attempting to study a subject that meant some thing to you personally... you were shot down and told you were too immature (in the Word) and would be best served by studying the fundamentals of PFAL...go read the blue book, you don't really know how to study the bible, and you will mess it up and learn it wrong.
This really irked me, and at first I followed along but it became evident to me in a relatively short time that we were not trying to use the newly acquired skills we had to actually study the bible but we were just repeating PFAL over and over again... And if you didn't want to be yelled at or chastised or told how incapable you were of being able to read the bible on your own, you had best keep any thing you were trying to do, to yourself.
IT was an exercise in futility... take the class to learn to study but don't you dare actually study.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's much easier to understand the reasoning behind this thinking when you finally accept that the whole thing was simply a veiled, business driven MLM scheme designed to generate profits for VPW.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Right on Leafy! (Except I was ONE who did study independently)
I did so to see for myself if what they were teaching actually made sense. Some did, but some didn't. It didn't seem to mean a whole great deal to me to find errors in their work, realizing they are human also and are prone to making mistakes at times, as are we all. When I saw MY mistakes, I just changed my mind. And it felt good to realize I was growing and learning and improving.
Yet YOU WERE RIGHT...when I dared to bring up things which didn't actually ring true to my heart, I was told precisely what you said -- "Go read your blue book!"
It's rather funny that when I tried to show them their error with LOGIC they couldn't refute, were they meek to hear and change? Did they try to honestly continue debating the issue with EVEN BETTER logic to prove I was yet wrong...or even compliment me on my effort? HELL NO!!! Instead, I was told that I had a devil-spirit called PRIDE ... and a few other things too!
Though I didn't believe their accusations, I acted "meek" and just took the crap so as not to rock the boat. And although my demeaner is not to raise my voice in anger, there were times I had to try that approach when I felt there was no other way...perhaps then they would listen. But to my surprise, they yelled back EVEN LOUDER! (they should study Proverbs INSTEAD of their f***ing blue book! -- please excuse my language -- I get "irked" as well.)
Why I stayed for over 30 years is a matter of my own heart. I tend to be extremely patient, forgiving and understanding...perhaps moreso than I ought...for even then my "buddies" falsely considered me "gullible". (I forgave them in my heart as well -- Ha!)
I guess I figured that eventually somebody with "clout" (Corps, Clergy, etc.) would "discover" those same things themselves and all would be well in the long run.
But that never happened! I eventually had to leave them because of it. It's rather ironic how the intriguing idea of being part of a Biblical RESEARCH ministry first lured me into The Way, but it was my own RESEARCH which led me out! (Ha!)
Please forgive me now for what I am about to say, because it is just too VAST to cover in proper detail -- I had made a "discovery" which to the best of my knowledge and searching the net has proven to be "unknown in the world". I am in the process of publishing a book about it (my first) which will be coming out in a few months.
I had tried in vain over the years to share this wonderful thing with them, but they would not hear. I supposed for a time that somehow the "enemy" was keeping them from seeing it. But over time, I realized that it was perhaps God himself who blinded their eyes to it, no matter how hard I tried to impart it. I suspect now that if they had been allowed to see and appreciate it for themselves, they would have STOLEN it from me, just as they have plagerized just about everything else! (And I am thankful for the many posts along those lines here at GS...my eyes were opened to their nonsense...and I had a nice cup of coffee and a piece of pie to boot!)
I thank God for his assistance in this matter all along, despite my ignorance of TWI leadership's true agenda.
You are most likely correct as well Waysider...when you said "the whole thing was simply a veiled, business driven MLM scheme designed to generate profits for VPW."
SPEC
:)
PS: The name of my book will most likely be "Genesis One: God's Table of Contents."
Edited by spectrum49Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
Hey Spec.. you are right and there were actually a few people doing independent study of the bible.. Some at HQ and some out in the twigs but if they tried to share anything that did not match up with PFAL they were shot down or told they were wrong or booted from TWI ..
so Yeah I overstated the facts a bit, but one thing is certain most people in TWI were discouraged from studying on their own.
And I was like you I bought that whole bs line that they were a research ministry and would change if some one brought a new perspective to a teaching.
one side benefit of getting involved in TWI is I can smell a snow job coming now! <_<
Edited by leafytwigletLink to comment
Share on other sites
Seth R.
Charlene, Beautiful article one of the best I've read here thank you for publishing it.
To equate a book of literature with a book of mathmatical formulas is not an axiom
[Who] would ask to have proof for the non-existence of something[?] Atheists like me believe in the non-existence of god, not because there *is* proof of the non-existence of god, but that there *isn't* proof of the existence of god.
A scientist always starts with I don't know, not I believe, so in research you can't start with an assumption and treat it as evidence for the types of experiments you will and will not do. Saying the in-errancy of the bible in an axiom precludes real serious study because you aren't a skeptic, you are a true believer the true researcher is skeptical even of their own findings that's why there are so many peer review journals in science. Where are the peer review journals in TWI or religion at large?
The assumption that what the bible says about itself is in any way reliable with out being tested is crazy, go back and read the first two chapters of Genesis and really try to have no preconceived notions about it. Does it make sense? Truly? Does it contain no contradictions? Really? The first two chapters of Genesis is so incomprehensible I can't believe it isn't filed under fiction 200 years ago or at least poetry. Then the story of Noah, pure bunk! Every animal by two? Check out how many animals species there are including insects, between 3 and 30 million! So collect 6 to 60 million animals insects included, house them and feed them for a couple months? The Ark would have to be size of 20 cruise ships unless you are Dr. Who and have a TARDIS, and this was all to be done by 8 people? Come on! get a freaking clue!
Seth
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Glad you liked the article. The Bible is a book of literature, as you pointed out, but the interesting aspect of it to me is that it is an anthology - a group of separate writings. They don't constitute a book in the sense we usually approach a book. The Bible is like about 60 books bound together. No statement can be made in it that speaks about it as a whole since it was not written as a whole. There's no ONE writer. There are many. So, IMO, VPW's claim that the Bible can even say anything about itself is erroneous.
I should have stood up in the PFAL class and said, "Wait, show me the verse that says the Bible is God's Word."
I think the typical answer was John 17:17, "Thy word is truth." BUT wait! VPW took that verse out of context, which was something he accused others of incorrectly doing.
That verse is part of a prayer that the gospel writer recorded as Jesus was praying to his Father. It is not referring to the Bible, for heaven's sake. THERE WAS NO BIBLE YET.
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
taxicab
Hi Charlene, It's wonderful to see all the thoughtful responses to this blog.
Many years ago I remember being very moved by Oral Roberts rendition of "The Red Thread". Wierwille did it as well. Recently I ran across it again and now I believe that people can make the Bible say anything they want it to say. I thought I would post it here for your comments as well as everyone else's comments. Enjoy,
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.