That you are constantly playing gotcha with my words and not trying to understand them tells me that you (and others) have such a filter in place. I feel no need to prove it to anyone. It is extremely obvious to anyone not caught up in it.
It was October 18th, 2022, at approximately 2:29 PMon another threadthat I realized a new proviso was in order, after years of witnessing a certain poster’s attempts to derail a thread by any means possible. I was fed up with my upfront and honest way of trying to communicate being taken advantage of.
My frustration usually resulted in me being an a$$-hole in return. To put a stop to this vicious cycle, I adopted a mental provision – a requirement, if you will – that I would not engage a certain poster unless I saw fruit – proof – that the person is ‘repentant’ of their trolling methods and evasive maneuvers.
What I have noticed is that the person seems to fake ‘repentance’ – or give some indication they are changing or negotiating with other Grease Spotters to find common ground. That seems like arope-a-dope strategy – a boxing fighting technique in which one contender leans against the ropes of the boxing ring and draws non-injuring offensive punches, letting the opponent tire themselves out.
After biting my lip for a while, I watched a video clipHow dirty debaters win against better opponentsposted by Rocky on another thread. The close of the video got me to recognize a necessary and critical task of Grease Spotters is to challenge…to confront the lies, hypocrisy, delusions, logical fallacies, and such promulgated by wierwille / PFAL fans…
That got me to rethink my ‘proviso’ of not engaging so-and-so unless this or that happens …
...I thought to myself – “hey, there’s no way I’m going to win in an argument with a fool… Instead of being drawn into his idiocy and wasting my energy to dispute his pet theories , delusions, and his reinventing of wierwille/PFAL – when I find an opportune time, I should speak to the point - present something of substance – not to so-and-so – but rather to the general Grease Spot audience – which I know is not only people who left TWI, but also those still in, thinking about leaving, on-the-fence folks, or anyone dissatisfied with the hypocrisy and hype.”
~ ~ ~ ~
On this topic of wierwille and ‘biblical research’ I have much to say - Grease Spot regulars you’ll have to excuse another long post zzzzZZZzzz ZZzzzz but I feel it is necessary to provide others with thought-provoking material.
first off, consider what wierwille himself said about examining the actual texts that are still in existence; in the PFAL book, page 128 in chapter 11, “The Translations of the Word of God”, wierwille states:
“Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all verses.”
~ ~ ~ ~
Now in sharp contrast to wierwille’s bogus methodology – here’s two notable scholars F.F. Bruce and Sir Frederic Kenyon – both with expertise in the historical reliability of the New Testament have stated that very little has been lost as to what was originally written in the New Testament docs, in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by FF Bruce... it says on pages 14 and 15:
“The study of the kind of attestation found in MSS and quotations in later writers is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism. This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two slips at least.
When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists’ errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small.
The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.
To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:
‘The Interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.’ “
~ ~ ~ ~
Bruce’s point is simple – with the increase of hand-copies comes the possibility of scribal errors – but that also means you have that many more “witnesses” as to what was originally said. And another thing to consider is what type of scribal errors occurred. Was a word misspelled, or repeated or transposed, etc. - - these would be easy to spot and corrected by comparing other copies...I have copied and pasted some Wikipedia excerpts on textual criticism and provide a few other sources hyperlinks and books – see below *
~ ~ ~ ~
To the thoughtful readers of Grease Spot, I leave some questions and points to consider:
How could wierwille claim he could get back to the authentic prophecy of Scripture when it was first given, if he is only looking at translations and versions instead of the manuscripts written in the original biblical languages?
It is doubtful wierwille was even competent to read and understand any of the languages and ancient cultures of the Bible.
What standard or criteria did wierwille use to declare or even suggest that the KJV or other translations lack validity and authority in matters of the Christian faith?
What specific errors are there in the KJV - or in other translations, for that matter - that needed to be addressed because it is mission critical to the church and/or one’s Christian faith? Or to put it another way - what errors did wierwille/PFAL confront and resolve to make TWI’s unique creed a better version of Christianity?
How accurate is wierwille’s ‘theory’ of getting back to the original God-breathed Word if all he did was compare translations /versions …oh and plagiarize the work of others too?
If God’s breath gave life to scripture (II Timothy 3:16) and in a way that represents an extension of God himself then doesn’t that make God a liar and thief if one believes that a bundle of plagiarized material (aka Power for Abundant Living and now Power For Abundant Living Today) is anywhere even close to being considered God-breathed, God-inspired, God-authorized, or God’s-addendum to the Bible?
~ ~ ~ ~
Hey, any folks in The Way International- whether you are Way Corps, Ambassadors, Staff, or in other programs, if you are anything like me – you have a tremendous hunger to expand your knowledge of the Word of God and desire to strengthen your relationship with Jesus Christ. That’s probably the main thing that motivated me to go WOW and Way Corps…Perhaps you are a little disappointed or frustrated by the shallow dogmatism, pat answers, overly simplistic and often wierwille-centric ‘curriculum’ of The Way International…Then you owe it to yourself to look into the issues brought up on this thread. If you haven’t read it yet, check out Amazon.com: Undertow: My Escape from the Fundamentalism and Cult Control of The Way International: 9780997874709: Edge, Charlene L, Ruth Mullen, Duane Stapp: Books, some excerpts from Amazon’s description of Penworks’ book:
Undertow: My Escape from the Fundamentalism and Cult Control of The Way International™ is Charlene Edge’s riveting memoir about the power of words to seduce, betray, and, in her case, eventually save. After a personal tragedy left her bereft, teenaged Charlene rejected faith and family when recruiters drew her into The Way International, a sect led by the charismatic Victor Paul Wierwille.
The Way became one of the largest cults in America. Charlene gave it seventeen years of her life. Believing that God led her to Wierwille, she underwent his intensive two-year training program, The Way Corps, designed to produce loyal leaders…
…Eventually Charlene was promoted to the inner circle of biblical researchers, where she discovered devastating secrets: Wierwille twisted texts of Scripture to serve his personal agenda, shamelessly plagiarized the work of others, and misrepresented the purpose of his organization. Worst of all, after Wierwille died in 1985, shocking reports surfaced of his secret sex ring.
Amid chaos at The Way’s Ohio-based headquarters, Charlene knew she had to escape—for her own survival and her child’s. Reading like a novel, Undertow is not only a brilliant cautionary tale about misplaced faith but also an exposé of the hazards of fundamentalism and the destructive nature of cults. Through her personal story, Charlene Edge shows how a vulnerable person can be seduced into following an authoritarian leader and how difficult it can be to find a way out.
end of excerpts from Amazon's description of Undertow
~ ~ ~ ~
This section is for those interested in textual criticism and how we got the Bible.
*Textual criticism and origin of the Bible:
Excerpts from Wikipedia article on textual criticism:
The objective of the textual critic's work is to provide a better understanding of the creation and historical transmission of the text and its variants. This understanding may lead to the production of a critical edition containing a scholarly curated text. If a scholar has several versions of a manuscript but no known original, then established methods of textual criticism can be used to seek to reconstruct the original text as closely as possible. The same methods can be used to reconstruct intermediate versions, or recensions, of a document's transcription history, depending on the number and quality of the text available…
…In some domains, such as religious and classical text editing, the phrase "lower criticism" refers to textual criticism and "higher criticism" to the endeavor to establish the authorship, date, and place of composition of the original text…
Many ancient works, such as the Bible and the Greek tragedies, survive in hundreds of copies, and the relationship of each copy to the original may be unclear. Textual scholars have debated for centuries which sources are most closely derived from the original, hence which readings in those sources are correct.Although texts such as Greek plays presumably had one original, the question of whether some biblical books, like the Gospels, ever had just one original has been discussed.[5] Interest in applying textual criticism to the Quran has also developed after the discovery of the Sana'a manuscripts in 1972, which possibly date back to the seventh to eighth centuries…
…Before inexpensive mechanical printing, literature was copied by hand, and many variations were introduced by copyists. The age of printing made the scribal profession effectively redundant. Printed editions, while less susceptible to the proliferation of variations likely to arise during manual transmission, are nonetheless not immune to introducing variations from an author's autograph. Instead of a scribe miscopying his source, a compositor or a printing shop may read or typeset a work in a way that differs from the autograph.[11]
Since each scribe or printer commits different errors, reconstruction of the lost original is often aided by a selection of readings taken from many sources. An edited text that draws from multiple sources is said to be eclectic. In contrast to this approach, some textual critics prefer to identify the single best surviving text, and not to combine readings from multiple sources. [12] ...
... When comparing different documents, or "witnesses", of a single, original text, the observed differences are called variant readings, or simply variants or readings. It is not always apparent which single variant represents the author's original work. The process of textual criticism seeks to explain how each variant may have entered the text, either by accident (duplication or omission) or intention (harmonization or censorship), as scribes or supervisors transmitted the original author's text by copying it. The textual critic's task, therefore, is to sort through the variants, eliminating those most likely to be un-original, hence establishing a critical text, or critical edition, that is intended to best approximate the original. At the same time, the critical text should document variant readings, so the relation of extant witnesses to the reconstructed original is apparent to a reader of the critical edition. In establishing the critical text, the textual critic considers both "external" evidence (the age, provenance, and affiliation of each witness) and "internal" or "physical" considerations (what the author and scribes, or printers, were likely to have done).[5]…
Eclecticism
Eclecticism refers to the practice of consulting a wide diversity of witnesses to a particular original. The practice is based on the principle that the more independent transmission histories there are, the less likely they will be to reproduce the same errors. What one omits, the others may retain; what one adds, the others are unlikely to add. Eclecticism allows inferences to be drawn regarding the original text, based on the evidence of contrasts between witnesses.
External evidence
External evidence is evidence of each physical witness, its date, source, and relationship to other known witnesses. Critics will often prefer the readings supported by the oldest witnesses. Since errors tend to accumulate, older manuscripts should have fewer errors. Readings supported by a majority of witnesses are also usually preferred, since these are less likely to reflect accidents or individual biases. For the same reasons, the most geographically diverse witnesses are preferred. Some manuscripts[which?] show evidence that particular care was taken in their composition, for example, by including alternative readings in their margins, demonstrating that more than one prior copy (exemplar) was consulted in producing the current one. Other factors being equal, these are the best witnesses.
The role of the textual critic is necessary when these basic criteria are in conflict. For instance, there will typically be fewer early copies, and a larger number of later copies. The textual critic will attempt to balance these criteria, to determine the original text.
There are many other more sophisticated considerations. For example, readings that depart from the known practice of a scribe or a given period may be deemed more reliable, since a scribe is unlikely on his own initiative to have departed from the usual practice.[18]
Internal evidence
Internal evidence is evidence that comes from the text itself, independent of the physical characteristics of the document. Various considerations can be used to decide which reading is the most likely to be original. Sometimes these considerations can be in conflict.[18]
Two common considerations have the Latin names lectio brevior (shorter reading) and lectio difficilior (more difficult reading). The first is the general observation that scribes tended to add words, for clarification or out of habit, more often than they removed them. The second, lectio difficilior potior (the harder reading is stronger), recognizes the tendency for harmonization—resolving apparent inconsistencies in the text. Applying this principle leads to taking the more difficult (unharmonized) reading as being more likely to be the original. Such cases also include scribes simplifying and smoothing texts they did not fully understand.[19]
Another scribal tendency is called homoioteleuton, meaning "similar endings". Homoioteleuton occurs when two words/phrases/lines end with the similar sequence of letters. The scribe, having finished copying the first, skips to the second, omitting all intervening words. Homoioarche refers to eye-skip when the beginnings of two lines are similar.[20]
The critic may also examine the other writings of the author to decide what words and grammatical constructions match his style. The evaluation of internal evidence also provides the critic with information that helps him evaluate the reliability of individual manuscripts. Thus, the consideration of internal and external evidence is related.
After considering all relevant factors, the textual critic seeks the reading that best explains how the other readings would arise. That reading is then the most likely candidate to have been original.
Canons of textual criticism
Various scholars have developed guidelines, or canons of textual criticism, to guide the exercise of the critic's judgment in determining the best readings of a text. One of the earliest was Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687–1752), who in 1734 produced an edition of the Greek New Testament. In his commentary, he established the rule Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua, ("the harder reading is to be preferred").[21]
Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812) published several editions of the New Testament. In his 1796 edition,[22] he established fifteen critical rules. Among them was a variant of Bengel's rule, Lectio difficilior potior, "the harder reading is better." Another was Lectio brevior praeferenda, "the shorter reading is better", based on the idea that scribes were more likely to add than to delete.[23] This rule cannot be applied uncritically, as scribes may omit material inadvertently.
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton Hort (1828–1892) published an edition of the New Testament in Greek in 1881. They proposed nine critical rules, including a version of Bengel's rule, "The reading is less likely to be original that shows a disposition to smooth away difficulties." They also argued that "Readings are approved or rejected by reason of the quality, and not the number, of their supporting witnesses", and that "The reading is to be preferred that most fitly explains the existence of the others."[24]
Many of these rules, although originally developed for biblical textual criticism, have wide applicability to any text susceptible to errors of transmission.
..I thought to myself – “hey, there’s no way I’m going to win in an argument with a fool… Instead of being drawn into his idiocy and wasting my energy to dispute his pet theories , delusions, and his reinventing of wierwille/PFAL – when I find an opportune time, I should speak to the point - present something of substance – not to so-and-so – but rather to the general Grease Spot audience – which I know is not only people who left TWI, but also those still in, thinking about leaving, on-the-fence folks, or anyone dissatisfied with the hypocrisy and hype.”
"Someday we’re going to find a manuscript that verifies this."
"“We probably won’t find a manuscript in my lifetime that verifies this, but my spiritual awareness tells me what the original has to say.”
Well, most people will look at this, if not through the lens of adoration of the speaker, and say that this is obviously an attempt by a person to disregard all the available evidence and claim something for which no evidence exists, allowing them to make ridiculous claims that contradict Scripture.
When lcm said this stuff, his go-to phrase for pulling stuff out of his sit-upon was "You'd know this if you worked The Word on this." In vpw's case, it was the manuscripts that nobody's ever seen that somehow still support vpw's claims even if they have been read by nobody and there's no proof they even exist.
Their existence is all predicated on the "spiritual awareness" of a plagiarizing rapist who lied and claimed to hear from God, who plagiarized the works of many others and still flubbed it often, who listened to conspiracy nuts then turned around and reported what they said and pretended it was Divine Revelation that told him, and got his "doctorate" from a degree mill.
Once all that is known, what kind of credibility does the speaker have? That's right- none at all. It was all smoke and mirrors. But when we didn't know any better, that nonsense played a LOT better because we trusted someone untrustworthy and thought we could trust him.
"I heard a complaint, circa 1977-78, about the research department from 2 associates or members of that department, just a month or two before they were kicked out of the 7th Corps. They told me that VPW was manipulating things and not doing valid research. "
Sure sounds like what was just documented. It's remarkably straightforward. He appealed to the authority of what was written in IMAGINARY DOCUMENTS. That's "not doing valid research" to say the least. (To say the most, it's champion-level Bullshirting to pull that and get away with it.)
"It all depends on what the goal of the research is.
(A) If the goal is to FIND truths not yet known, using only methods of the senses and logic, then the known manuscripts must be recognized as the only evidence available to work with. Everything must be built on that known evidence."
That's called "RESEARCH." That's how RESEARCH WORKS.
"(B) If the goal is to VERIFY truths already known spiritually, then unknown manuscripts may be sought in that verification.
Of course, method B is not recognized by academia at all. The possibility of spiritually knowing anything like this is denied there totally. In other words the students of the Bible forbid the Author from giving revelation to explain the Bible. They want to do it all themselves."
There's no demonstrated difference between "truths already known spiritually" and "outright bullshirt" here, neither is there one in practice. vpw was looking for imaginary manuscripts that matched what he CLAIMED to know, and is ASSUMED he knew "spiritually" because he implied that, insinuated that, and (rarely) actually said it outright. All of it rests entirely on the credibility of the claimant- and he was proven to be a liar, fraud, plagiarist.....
Academia doesn't recognize IMAGINARY MANUSCRIPTS. Nor should it. How would you feel if someone announced that everything you believed was now specifically disproven and forbidden due to an IMAGINARY MANUSCRIPT that MUST contradict you? Academia is based on what can actually be shown and entered into evidence, not things IMAGINARY. Revelation is fine, but is no substitute for actual manuscripts. This is easy for almost anyone to understand.
"The fact that the devil was the one who cleverly obscured and scrambled the originals, does not daunt these academia students. They think they can match wits with the devil and win."
The poor scholarship that can lead to statements like this are endemic to people whose lack of study led to cutting corners. vpw pulled this, and his sychophants follow along blindly- even though average students have no trouble understanding how false this is. This is the internet age, Anyone can find proof that the originals were not "scrambled", nor "obscured" nor "unreliable" nor "tattered remnants." Anyone looking through the Masoretic text and the Samaritan Pentateuch can see that the OT is remarkably well-preserved. Anyone comparing the contents of the Cairo Genizah to modern Texts can see that the NT is remarkably well-preserved- at least in Greek. (But not in Aramaic.)
"In the early days of VPW's research he knew he had to start with senses approach, or method (A). But God's assurance to him was that when he did his best and was getting stuck, the revelation would be there to get him over the hump. "
No, vpw plagiarized Bullinger and others, and made it sound as if he'd actually done research into the manuscripts. He NEVER studied them. He studied HOMILETICS, how to preach, which is an incredibly soft option compared to Bible history, Bible languages, study of manuscripts..... The "God's assurance" part is ASSUMED- based on the authority he claimed and the integrity of which he was bankrupt. We used to take his word for things before we learned it was worthless and lacked integrity.
"As time went by, it became useful to "prove" these little leaps of revelation to others to help them in their believing. Occasionally finding a manuscript that verified what God had told him would make it easier to teach others. It would also help VPW's believing for the next round of research."
No. As time went by, twi gathered people who could actually study the manuscripts. So, vpw- who lacked facility with them and even lacked real understanding of their contents- would occasionally send one of his in-house experts on a fools errand to find imaginary manuscripts that "must" exist- since he wanted some manuscript SOMEWHERE to say what he WANTED it to say. Furthermore, sending them to look over the manuscripts to see what they could learn could yield something valuable, something he could monetize, something he could claim God Almighty revealed to him.
"There were a few other reasons for this kind of Verification Research being useful.
Something to remember is this. Finding a manuscript that verifies what VPW already had committed to DOES NOT PROVE that VPW was right in that prior commitment. But it does help make it easier to believe. "
It was a fools errand that did NOT turn up the imaginary manuscripts that agreed with vpw. He admitted as much in the previous quote.
"There are ALL KINDS of manuscripts out there and hardly any ways to figure out how valid each one is. It is all guesswork. Sometimes it can be a well educated piece of guesswork. But without revelation, all Biblical research is really guesswork, especially when you factor in that the devil intelligently scrambled things for us."
That's an astonishingly- ignorant quote. It's easy to prove otherwise now, between books easy to acquire, and documentation available online 24/7. There's entire fields of study, and how one manuscript is rated above another is clear- and it is hard work. That's what distinguishes vpw from the researchers in another way- vpw always skipped the hard work. But learning HOW manuscripts are rated is NOT hard. It is painstakingly done, and anything BUT "guesswork."
All of that isn't terrible shocking from someone whose final word on things is "the limits of what vpw taught." vpw's notable IGNORANCE of the entire field was covered by his dismissal of the entire field. Seeing people STILL doing that is a shame, and they can avoid it easily. And most people do.
It was October 18th, 2022, at approximately 2:29 PMon another threadthat I realized a new proviso was in order, after years of witnessing a certain poster’s attempts to derail a thread by any means possible. I was fed up with my upfront and honest way of trying to communicate being taken advantage of.
My frustration usually resulted in me being an a$$-hole in return. To put a stop to this vicious cycle, I adopted a mental provision – a requirement, if you will – that I would not engage a certain poster unless I saw fruit – proof – that the person is ‘repentant’ of their trolling methods and evasive maneuvers.
What I have noticed is that the person seems to fake ‘repentance’ – or give some indication they are changing or negotiating with other Grease Spotters to find common ground. That seems like arope-a-dope strategy – a boxing fighting technique in which one contender leans against the ropes of the boxing ring and draws non-injuring offensive punches, letting the opponent tire themselves out.
After biting my lip for a while, I watched a video clipHow dirty debaters win against better opponentsposted by Rocky on another thread. The close of the video got me to recognize a necessary and critical task of Grease Spotters is to challenge…to confront the lies, hypocrisy, delusions, logical fallacies, and such promulgated by wierwille / PFAL fans…
That got me to rethink my ‘proviso’ of not engaging so-and-so unless this or that happens …
...I thought to myself – “hey, there’s no way I’m going to win in an argument with a fool… Instead of being drawn into his idiocy and wasting my energy to dispute his pet theories , delusions, and his reinventing of wierwille/PFAL – when I find an opportune time, I should speak to the point - present something of substance – not to so-and-so – but rather to the general Grease Spot audience – which I know is not only people who left TWI, but also those still in, thinking about leaving, on-the-fence folks, or anyone dissatisfied with the hypocrisy and hype.”
~ ~ ~ ~
On this topic of wierwille and ‘biblical research’ I have much to say - Grease Spot regulars you’ll have to excuse another long post zzzzZZZzzz ZZzzzz but I feel it is necessary to provide others with thought-provoking material.
first off, consider what wierwille himself said about examining the actual texts that are still in existence; in the PFAL book, page 128 in chapter 11, “The Translations of the Word of God”, wierwille states:
“Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all verses.”
~ ~ ~ ~
Now in sharp contrast to wierwille’s bogus methodology – here’s two notable scholars F.F. Bruce and Sir Frederic Kenyon – both with expertise in the historical reliability of the New Testament have stated that very little has been lost as to what was originally written in the New Testament docs, in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by FF Bruce... it says on pages 14 and 15:
“The study of the kind of attestation found in MSS and quotations in later writers is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism. This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two slips at least.
When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists’ errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small.
The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.
To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:
‘The Interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.’ “
~ ~ ~ ~
Bruce’s point is simple – with the increase of hand-copies comes the possibility of scribal errors – but that also means you have that many more “witnesses” as to what was originally said. And another thing to consider is what type of scribal errors occurred. Was a word misspelled, or repeated or transposed, etc. - - these would be easy to spot and corrected by comparing other copies...I have copied and pasted some Wikipedia excerpts on textual criticism and provide a few other sources hyperlinks and books – see below *
~ ~ ~ ~
To the thoughtful readers of Grease Spot, I leave some questions and points to consider:
How could wierwille claim he could get back to the authentic prophecy of Scripture when it was first given, if he is only looking at translations and versions instead of the manuscripts written in the original biblical languages?
It is doubtful wierwille was even competent to read and understand any of the languages and ancient cultures of the Bible.
What standard or criteria did wierwille use to declare or even suggest that the KJV or other translations lack validity and authority in matters of the Christian faith?
What specific errors are there in the KJV - or in other translations, for that matter - that needed to be addressed because it is mission critical to the church and/or one’s Christian faith? Or to put it another way - what errors did wierwille/PFAL confront and resolve to make TWI’s unique creed a better version of Christianity?
How accurate is wierwille’s ‘theory’ of getting back to the original God-breathed Word if all he did was compare translations /versions …oh and plagiarize the work of others too?
If God’s breath gave life to scripture (II Timothy 3:16) and in a way that represents an extension of God himself then doesn’t that make God a liar and thief if one believes that a bundle of plagiarized material (aka Power for Abundant Living and now Power For Abundant Living Today) is anywhere even close to being considered God-breathed, God-inspired, God-authorized, or God’s-addendum to the Bible?
~ ~ ~ ~
Hey, any folks in The Way International- whether you are Way Corps, Ambassadors, Staff, or in other programs, if you are anything like me – you have a tremendous hunger to expand your knowledge of the Word of God and desire to strengthen your relationship with Jesus Christ. That’s probably the main thing that motivated me to go WOW and Way Corps…Perhaps you are a little disappointed or frustrated by the shallow dogmatism, pat answers, overly simplistic and often wierwille-centric ‘curriculum’ of The Way International…Then you owe it to yourself to look into the issues brought up on this thread. If you haven’t read it yet, check out Amazon.com: Undertow: My Escape from the Fundamentalism and Cult Control of The Way International: 9780997874709: Edge, Charlene L, Ruth Mullen, Duane Stapp: Books, some excerpts from Amazon’s description of Penworks’ book:
Undertow: My Escape from the Fundamentalism and Cult Control of The Way International™ is Charlene Edge’s riveting memoir about the power of words to seduce, betray, and, in her case, eventually save. After a personal tragedy left her bereft, teenaged Charlene rejected faith and family when recruiters drew her into The Way International, a sect led by the charismatic Victor Paul Wierwille.
The Way became one of the largest cults in America. Charlene gave it seventeen years of her life. Believing that God led her to Wierwille, she underwent his intensive two-year training program, The Way Corps, designed to produce loyal leaders…
…Eventually Charlene was promoted to the inner circle of biblical researchers, where she discovered devastating secrets: Wierwille twisted texts of Scripture to serve his personal agenda, shamelessly plagiarized the work of others, and misrepresented the purpose of his organization. Worst of all, after Wierwille died in 1985, shocking reports surfaced of his secret sex ring.
Amid chaos at The Way’s Ohio-based headquarters, Charlene knew she had to escape—for her own survival and her child’s. Reading like a novel, Undertow is not only a brilliant cautionary tale about misplaced faith but also an exposé of the hazards of fundamentalism and the destructive nature of cults. Through her personal story, Charlene Edge shows how a vulnerable person can be seduced into following an authoritarian leader and how difficult it can be to find a way out.
end of excerpts from Amazon's description of Undertow
~ ~ ~ ~
This section is for those interested in textual criticism and how we got the Bible.
*Textual criticism and origin of the Bible:
Excerpts from Wikipedia article on textual criticism:
The objective of the textual critic's work is to provide a better understanding of the creation and historical transmission of the text and its variants. This understanding may lead to the production of a critical edition containing a scholarly curated text. If a scholar has several versions of a manuscript but no known original, then established methods of textual criticism can be used to seek to reconstruct the original text as closely as possible. The same methods can be used to reconstruct intermediate versions, or recensions, of a document's transcription history, depending on the number and quality of the text available…
…In some domains, such as religious and classical text editing, the phrase "lower criticism" refers to textual criticism and "higher criticism" to the endeavor to establish the authorship, date, and place of composition of the original text…
Many ancient works, such as the Bible and the Greek tragedies, survive in hundreds of copies, and the relationship of each copy to the original may be unclear. Textual scholars have debated for centuries which sources are most closely derived from the original, hence which readings in those sources are correct.Although texts such as Greek plays presumably had one original, the question of whether some biblical books, like the Gospels, ever had just one original has been discussed.[5] Interest in applying textual criticism to the Quran has also developed after the discovery of the Sana'a manuscripts in 1972, which possibly date back to the seventh to eighth centuries…
…Before inexpensive mechanical printing, literature was copied by hand, and many variations were introduced by copyists. The age of printing made the scribal profession effectively redundant. Printed editions, while less susceptible to the proliferation of variations likely to arise during manual transmission, are nonetheless not immune to introducing variations from an author's autograph. Instead of a scribe miscopying his source, a compositor or a printing shop may read or typeset a work in a way that differs from the autograph.[11]
Since each scribe or printer commits different errors, reconstruction of the lost original is often aided by a selection of readings taken from many sources. An edited text that draws from multiple sources is said to be eclectic. In contrast to this approach, some textual critics prefer to identify the single best surviving text, and not to combine readings from multiple sources. [12] ...
... When comparing different documents, or "witnesses", of a single, original text, the observed differences are called variant readings, or simply variants or readings. It is not always apparent which single variant represents the author's original work. The process of textual criticism seeks to explain how each variant may have entered the text, either by accident (duplication or omission) or intention (harmonization or censorship), as scribes or supervisors transmitted the original author's text by copying it. The textual critic's task, therefore, is to sort through the variants, eliminating those most likely to be un-original, hence establishing a critical text, or critical edition, that is intended to best approximate the original. At the same time, the critical text should document variant readings, so the relation of extant witnesses to the reconstructed original is apparent to a reader of the critical edition. In establishing the critical text, the textual critic considers both "external" evidence (the age, provenance, and affiliation of each witness) and "internal" or "physical" considerations (what the author and scribes, or printers, were likely to have done).[5]…
Eclecticism
Eclecticism refers to the practice of consulting a wide diversity of witnesses to a particular original. The practice is based on the principle that the more independent transmission histories there are, the less likely they will be to reproduce the same errors. What one omits, the others may retain; what one adds, the others are unlikely to add. Eclecticism allows inferences to be drawn regarding the original text, based on the evidence of contrasts between witnesses.
External evidence
External evidence is evidence of each physical witness, its date, source, and relationship to other known witnesses. Critics will often prefer the readings supported by the oldest witnesses. Since errors tend to accumulate, older manuscripts should have fewer errors. Readings supported by a majority of witnesses are also usually preferred, since these are less likely to reflect accidents or individual biases. For the same reasons, the most geographically diverse witnesses are preferred. Some manuscripts[which?] show evidence that particular care was taken in their composition, for example, by including alternative readings in their margins, demonstrating that more than one prior copy (exemplar) was consulted in producing the current one. Other factors being equal, these are the best witnesses.
The role of the textual critic is necessary when these basic criteria are in conflict. For instance, there will typically be fewer early copies, and a larger number of later copies. The textual critic will attempt to balance these criteria, to determine the original text.
There are many other more sophisticated considerations. For example, readings that depart from the known practice of a scribe or a given period may be deemed more reliable, since a scribe is unlikely on his own initiative to have departed from the usual practice.[18]
Internal evidence
Internal evidence is evidence that comes from the text itself, independent of the physical characteristics of the document. Various considerations can be used to decide which reading is the most likely to be original. Sometimes these considerations can be in conflict.[18]
Two common considerations have the Latin names lectio brevior (shorter reading) and lectio difficilior (more difficult reading). The first is the general observation that scribes tended to add words, for clarification or out of habit, more often than they removed them. The second, lectio difficilior potior (the harder reading is stronger), recognizes the tendency for harmonization—resolving apparent inconsistencies in the text. Applying this principle leads to taking the more difficult (unharmonized) reading as being more likely to be the original. Such cases also include scribes simplifying and smoothing texts they did not fully understand.[19]
Another scribal tendency is called homoioteleuton, meaning "similar endings". Homoioteleuton occurs when two words/phrases/lines end with the similar sequence of letters. The scribe, having finished copying the first, skips to the second, omitting all intervening words. Homoioarche refers to eye-skip when the beginnings of two lines are similar.[20]
The critic may also examine the other writings of the author to decide what words and grammatical constructions match his style. The evaluation of internal evidence also provides the critic with information that helps him evaluate the reliability of individual manuscripts. Thus, the consideration of internal and external evidence is related.
After considering all relevant factors, the textual critic seeks the reading that best explains how the other readings would arise. That reading is then the most likely candidate to have been original.
Canons of textual criticism
Various scholars have developed guidelines, or canons of textual criticism, to guide the exercise of the critic's judgment in determining the best readings of a text. One of the earliest was Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687–1752), who in 1734 produced an edition of the Greek New Testament. In his commentary, he established the rule Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua, ("the harder reading is to be preferred").[21]
Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812) published several editions of the New Testament. In his 1796 edition,[22] he established fifteen critical rules. Among them was a variant of Bengel's rule, Lectio difficilior potior, "the harder reading is better." Another was Lectio brevior praeferenda, "the shorter reading is better", based on the idea that scribes were more likely to add than to delete.[23] This rule cannot be applied uncritically, as scribes may omit material inadvertently.
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton Hort (1828–1892) published an edition of the New Testament in Greek in 1881. They proposed nine critical rules, including a version of Bengel's rule, "The reading is less likely to be original that shows a disposition to smooth away difficulties." They also argued that "Readings are approved or rejected by reason of the quality, and not the number, of their supporting witnesses", and that "The reading is to be preferred that most fitly explains the existence of the others."[24]
Many of these rules, although originally developed for biblical textual criticism, have wide applicability to any text susceptible to errors of transmission.
There are ALL KINDS of manuscripts out there and hardly any ways to figure out how valid each one is. It is all guesswork. Sometimes it can be a well educated piece of guesswork. But without revelation, all Biblical research is really guesswork, especially when you factor in that the devil intelligently scrambled things for us.
There really is not a better way to describe the “okie research” that I was getting at than this. It was learned from the master.
In reality the field has all sorts of reference checks in it. A manuscript found in South America has different scribe copy errors than a known codex so it can be verified and checked. Known first century other writings are available for comparison - historians like Josephus and others. It is a whole field. People in TWI have zero training in this field other than self reading books. It is the blind leading the blind basically in the field.
This field is also how they easily refute the Mormons. At cesletter.org some of the unanswerable questions are like “why does this supposed direct dictation from the angel Moroni have these 12th century scribe errors copied exactly?”
Without knowledge in the field the uneducated refer to superstition. Like the “cargo cults” they invent stories and rituals to bring the prosperity.
There are two whole separate cults - the Mormons and the Jehovahs Witnesses that have special people dedicated to “feeling” the “Holy Spirit” s direction to lead them to their version of truth. They are called Q15 and the Watchtower society. In TWI they are called the BOD.
There really is not a better way to describe the “okie research” that I was getting at than this.
I plead guilty to being an total amateur on textual analysis.
What I mean by “guesswork” is that, compared to hard core science where surety is measured with numbers, textual analysis sounds much more like qualitative sorting into categories that could be labeled “likely”or “unlikely.”
Along with my “guesswork” comments, PLEASE DON’T FORGET this one line that I deliberately put in there:
“Sometimes it can be a well-educated piece of guesswork.”
The Joseph Smith item mentioned above (12th century scribe errors copied exactly) is an example of this.
*/*/*/*/*
I also plead guilty to have, so far, only come up with a “first draft” for my take on the changes at the Research Dept, especially as the mission seemed to gradually change from searching to confirming. An unvarnished history of TWI will have to include this. I am just trying, here, to sort out the history of the Research Department and the shifting mission it had.
I will be re-reading all this to see if I should modify my positions on this, especially as I collect more insider info from active posters, as well as in the archives.
There really is not a better way to describe the “okie research” that I was getting at than this.
This was in response to what I had posted here:
On 1/21/2023 at 6:59 PM, Mike said:
There are ALL KINDS of manuscripts out there and hardly any ways to figure out how valid each one is. It is all guesswork. Sometimes it can be a well educated piece of guesswork. But without revelation, all Biblical research is really guesswork, especially when you factor in that the devil intelligently scrambled things for us.
Again, I hope my "Sometimes it can be a well educated piece of guesswork" is not lost in this, but here I want to emphasize the last line:
"...especially when you factor in that the devil intelligently scrambled things for us."
I have mentioned this factor several times, but it seems to not be seen or understood.
The devil blew it when he crucified Christ, because that made it possible for millions to challenge his grip on the world like Jesus did. To thwart this the devil sought to scramble the NT enough to occlude those NT scriptures that most assisted young believers in growing up into the stature of that Christ within and become another Jesus-like challenger of the adversary's rule.
A lot of this occlusion looks like mere entropy and accident, and some may very well be that innocent.
But this scrambling would me most strategic if it included something like precision surgery, instead of utter destruction. A counterfeit copy of a scripture could actually do more damage to the learning Christians, and be even more effective than a simple gap in the manuscript.
All of the eavesdropping I've done on textual analysis tells me that this semi-science does not include the possibility of super-intelligent spirit being forgeries. I could be wrong here, and just missed the academic lingo for this possibility.
Most of the "culprits" I heard of textual analysis uncovering were human intelligence level forgeries, and scribe copying errors, and then elemental degeneration due to fire or bacteria.
The GreaseSpot reading I've done on textual analysis SEEMS to tell me that no one here considers this possibility of very devilishly direct surgical alterations. Is this a correct observation?
I would expect these kinds of forgeries to exist, because the stakes were so high. The promise of us doing all the things that Jesus Christ did and greater was seriously thwarted after the apostles died. Something cut it all off, and I don't think it was God.
Again, I hope my "Sometimes it can be a well educated piece of guesswork" is not lost in this, but here I want to emphasize the last line:
"...especially when you factor in that the devil intelligently scrambled things for us."
I have mentioned this factor several times, but it seems to not be seen or understood.
The devil blew it when he crucified Christ, because that made it possible for millions to challenge his grip on the world like Jesus did. To thwart this the devil sought to scramble the NT enough to occlude those NT scriptures that most assisted young believers in growing up into the stature of that Christ within and become another Jesus-like challenger of the adversary's rule.
A lot of this occlusion looks like mere entropy and accident, and some may very well be that innocent.
But this scrambling would me most strategic if it included something like precision surgery, instead of utter destruction. A counterfeit copy of a scripture could actually do more damage to the learning Christians, and be even more effective than a simple gap in the manuscript.
All of the eavesdropping I've done on textual analysis tells me that this semi-science does not include the possibility of super-intelligent spirit being forgeries. I could be wrong here, and just missed the academic lingo for this possibility.
Most of the "culprits" I heard of textual analysis uncovering were human intelligence level forgeries, and scribe copying errors, and then elemental degeneration due to fire or bacteria.
The GreaseSpot reading I've done on textual analysis SEEMS to tell me that no one here considers this possibility of very devilishly direct surgical alterations. Is this a correct observation?
I would expect these kinds of forgeries to exist, because the stakes were so high. The promise of us doing all the things that Jesus Christ did and greater was seriously thwarted after the apostles died. Something cut it all off, and I don't think it was God.
Mike I see how this line of logic can be appealing to people with a propensity for conspiracy theories.
The Hebrew language interpretations have always been pretty stable and similar as they have the jot and tittle markings as what they use in computers as a “checksum” marking to verify the truth of the artifact.
Greek is a little more free form. It is the basis for math and some other science is a little more precise in some ways and it’s been subject to interpretation.
The problem with the extremist isolationist fundamentalist view you are pursuing is that you discount God working in other Christians to preserve the text and working in them to understand the text.
So like VPW who made a big deal about burning his commentaries and only reading scripture not his contemporaries who are Christians also basically went the isolationist conspiracy theory route.
As his life progressed that became more and more evident in the Advanced class where eventually the statement was made that all the denominations heads were seed of the serpent.
I don’t think so. I don’t think the Pope positions have been seed of the serpent men. I think my brothers and sisters in Christ are just that, including the deluded isolationists.
The GreaseSpot reading I've done on textual analysis SEEMS to tell me that no one here considers this possibility of very devilishly direct surgical alterations.
No...I believe that's possible. Wierwille made many such alterations and even had books published to support his error.
Again, I hope my "Sometimes it can be a well educated piece of guesswork" is not lost in this, but here I want to emphasize the last line:
"...especially when you factor in that the devil intelligently scrambled things for us."
I have mentioned this factor several times, but it seems to not be seen or understood.
The devil blew it when he crucified Christ, because that made it possible for millions to challenge his grip on the world like Jesus did. To thwart this the devil sought to scramble the NT enough to occlude those NT scriptures that most assisted young believers in growing up into the stature of that Christ within and become another Jesus-like challenger of the adversary's rule.
A lot of this occlusion looks like mere entropy and accident, and some may very well be that innocent.
But this scrambling would me most strategic if it included something like precision surgery, instead of utter destruction. A counterfeit copy of a scripture could actually do more damage to the learning Christians, and be even more effective than a simple gap in the manuscript.
All of the eavesdropping I've done on textual analysis tells me that this semi-science does not include the possibility of super-intelligent spirit being forgeries. I could be wrong here, and just missed the academic lingo for this possibility.
Most of the "culprits" I heard of textual analysis uncovering were human intelligence level forgeries, and scribe copying errors, and then elemental degeneration due to fire or bacteria.
The GreaseSpot reading I've done on textual analysis SEEMS to tell me that no one here considers this possibility of very devilishly direct surgical alterations. Is this a correct observation?
I would expect these kinds of forgeries to exist, because the stakes were so high. The promise of us doing all the things that Jesus Christ did and greater was seriously thwarted after the apostles died. Something cut it all off, and I don't think it was God.
So once again we move it into the spiritual realm where any half baked idea is possible.
So tell me, if we accept the notion of spiritual surgical alterations, how do we know the whole bible isn't one of those forgeries?
In order to be in accordance with the great principle how would one of these spiritual forgeries come about?
Charlene's book is about as insider as you can get on this topic. You have a copy, right? Have you read it?
I am slowly reading it, but now that the holiday madness is finally over, I can pick up some speed. My business goes crazy just before Christmas, and the following month is always a catch-up scene. One more big rain storm and I ought to finish that reading.
I am slowly reading it, but now that the holiday madness is finally over, I can pick up some speed. My business goes crazy just before Christmas, and the following month is always a catch-up scene. One more big rain storm and I ought to finish that reading.
Hey, I get it. It took me three months to get through PFAL - two hours every Saturday. And I never even got a thank you for enduring and persevering.
Like for example “The Myth of the Six Million” which was for most of history part of Adv Class TWI material and Corps reading list material.
I mean anyone stupid enough to back that shiz today is gonna get blackballed faster than Yeezy.
I never read those holocaust denial books (were there two?), but it was my impression that they did NOT totally deny it happened, and just challenged the large numbers like 6 million.
The PURPOSE of them (along with "The Thirteenth Tribe") them being promoted in the bookstore was to counter the POLITICAL idea that modern Israel was a restoration of God's Israel.
In the early 1970s "The Late Great Planet Earth" had rocked the USA with predictions of the Christ's Return date based on the 1949 formation of modern Israel being PROPHESY FULFILLED.
I have recently (5 years ago) seen a bunch of PFAL grads get into similar predictions of Christ's Return. People literally sell their properties in anticipation of this, and even run up their credit cards, thinking they wont have to pay if Raptured.
So, my impression was TWI was trying (pretty inefficiently) to thwart the idea of modern Israel being Biblical Israel with all those odd books in the bookstore. I did read "Thirteenth Tribe" though, because I was a lifetime science fan of Arthur Koestler, the author.
Am I right about my vague memory that the Myth Six Million merely says that the number of people killed was less than one million?
I never read those holocaust denial books (were there two?), but it was my impression that they did NOT totally deny it happened, and just challenged the large numbers like 6 million.
The PURPOSE of them (along with "The Thirteenth Tribe") them being promoted in the bookstore was to counter the POLITICAL idea that modern Israel was a restoration of God's Israel.
In the early 1970s "The Late Great Planet Earth" had rocked the USA with predictions of the Christ's Return date based on the 1949 formation of modern Israel being PROPHESY FULFILLED.
I have recently (5 years ago) seen a bunch of PFAL grads get into similar predictions of Christ's Return. People literally sell their properties in anticipation of this, and even run up their credit cards, thinking they wont have to pay if Raptured.
So, my impression was TWI was trying (pretty inefficiently) to thwart the idea of modern Israel being Biblical Israel with all those odd books in the bookstore. I did read "Thirteenth Tribe" though, because I was a lifetime science fan of Arthur Koestler, the author.
Am I right about my vague memory that the Myth Six Million merely says that the number of people killed was less than one million?
Wouldn't a political idea be establishing Israel to maintain influence in the Middle East? Because oil.
Can't see why one would need conspiracy theories when the need for globalized influence was paramount.
I never read those holocaust denial books (were there two?), but it was my impression that they did NOT totally deny it happened, and just challenged the large numbers like 6 million.
The PURPOSE of them (along with "The Thirteenth Tribe") them being promoted in the bookstore was to counter the POLITICAL idea that modern Israel was a restoration of God's Israel.
In the early 1970s "The Late Great Planet Earth" had rocked the USA with predictions of the Christ's Return date based on the 1949 formation of modern Israel being PROPHESY FULFILLED.
I have recently (5 years ago) seen a bunch of PFAL grads get into similar predictions of Christ's Return. People literally sell their properties in anticipation of this, and even run up their credit cards, thinking they wont have to pay if Raptured.
So, my impression was TWI was trying (pretty inefficiently) to thwart the idea of modern Israel being Biblical Israel with all those odd books in the bookstore. I did read "Thirteenth Tribe" though, because I was a lifetime science fan of Arthur Koestler, the author.
Am I right about my vague memory that the Myth Six Million merely says that the number of people killed was less than one million?
Introducing meta discussions of conspiracy theory is a bit too far off the beaten path of this particular topic.
True – but just think if devil spirits could make scrambled eggs out of the Bible just imagine what they could do to a thread – Threggs Benedict…getting beaten up while off the beaten path beats the hell out of QAnon-like sedition…uhm… that’s if you’re even into that sorta thing… sadomasochistically speaking of course.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
21
19
16
23
Popular Days
Jan 23
53
Jan 21
26
Jan 3
21
Jan 22
19
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 21 posts
Bolshevik 19 posts
chockfull 16 posts
OldSkool 23 posts
Popular Days
Jan 23 2023
53 posts
Jan 21 2023
26 posts
Jan 3 2023
21 posts
Jan 22 2023
19 posts
Popular Posts
Bolshevik
You're describing confabulation via confirmation bias. You literally decide anything you want, because of your narcissistic paranoia that your adversary is "out there", and decide that whatever you l
WordWolf
"Someday we’re going to find a manuscript that verifies this." "“We probably won’t find a manuscript in my lifetime that verifies this, but my spiritual awareness tells me what the original has t
Rocky
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The farce of wierwille’s biblical research
It was October 18th, 2022, at approximately 2:29 PM on another thread that I realized a new proviso was in order, after years of witnessing a certain poster’s attempts to derail a thread by any means possible. I was fed up with my upfront and honest way of trying to communicate being taken advantage of.
My frustration usually resulted in me being an a$$-hole in return. To put a stop to this vicious cycle, I adopted a mental provision – a requirement, if you will – that I would not engage a certain poster unless I saw fruit – proof – that the person is ‘repentant’ of their trolling methods and evasive maneuvers.
What I have noticed is that the person seems to fake ‘repentance’ – or give some indication they are changing or negotiating with other Grease Spotters to find common ground. That seems like a rope-a-dope strategy – a boxing fighting technique in which one contender leans against the ropes of the boxing ring and draws non-injuring offensive punches, letting the opponent tire themselves out.
After biting my lip for a while, I watched a video clip How dirty debaters win against better opponents posted by Rocky on another thread. The close of the video got me to recognize a necessary and critical task of Grease Spotters is to challenge…to confront the lies, hypocrisy, delusions, logical fallacies, and such promulgated by wierwille / PFAL fans…
That got me to rethink my ‘proviso’ of not engaging so-and-so unless this or that happens …
...I thought to myself – “hey, there’s no way I’m going to win in an argument with a fool… Instead of being drawn into his idiocy and wasting my energy to dispute his pet theories , delusions, and his reinventing of wierwille/PFAL – when I find an opportune time, I should speak to the point - present something of substance – not to so-and-so – but rather to the general Grease Spot audience – which I know is not only people who left TWI, but also those still in, thinking about leaving, on-the-fence folks, or anyone dissatisfied with the hypocrisy and hype.”
~ ~ ~ ~
On this topic of wierwille and ‘biblical research’ I have much to say - Grease Spot regulars you’ll have to excuse another long post zzzzZZZzzz
ZZzzzz but I feel it is necessary to provide others with thought-provoking material.
first off, consider what wierwille himself said about examining the actual texts that are still in existence; in the PFAL book, page 128 in chapter 11, “The Translations of the Word of God”, wierwille states:
“Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all verses.”
~ ~ ~ ~
Now in sharp contrast to wierwille’s bogus methodology – here’s two notable scholars F.F. Bruce and Sir Frederic Kenyon – both with expertise in the historical reliability of the New Testament have stated that very little has been lost as to what was originally written in the New Testament docs, in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by FF Bruce... it says on pages 14 and 15:
“The study of the kind of attestation found in MSS and quotations in later writers is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism. This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two slips at least.
When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists’ errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small.
The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.
To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:
‘The Interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.’ “
~ ~ ~ ~
Bruce’s point is simple – with the increase of hand-copies comes the possibility of scribal errors – but that also means you have that many more “witnesses” as to what was originally said. And another thing to consider is what type of scribal errors occurred. Was a word misspelled, or repeated or transposed, etc. - - these would be easy to spot and corrected by comparing other copies...I have copied and pasted some Wikipedia excerpts on textual criticism and provide a few other sources hyperlinks and books – see below *
~ ~ ~ ~
To the thoughtful readers of Grease Spot, I leave some questions and points to consider:
How could wierwille claim he could get back to the authentic prophecy of Scripture when it was first given, if he is only looking at translations and versions instead of the manuscripts written in the original biblical languages?
It is doubtful wierwille was even competent to read and understand any of the languages and ancient cultures of the Bible.
What standard or criteria did wierwille use to declare or even suggest that the KJV or other translations lack validity and authority in matters of the Christian faith?
What specific errors are there in the KJV - or in other translations, for that matter - that needed to be addressed because it is mission critical to the church and/or one’s Christian faith? Or to put it another way - what errors did wierwille/PFAL confront and resolve to make TWI’s unique creed a better version of Christianity?
How accurate is wierwille’s ‘theory’ of getting back to the original God-breathed Word if all he did was compare translations /versions …oh and plagiarize the work of others too?
If God’s breath gave life to scripture (II Timothy 3:16) and in a way that represents an extension of God himself then doesn’t that make God a liar and thief if one believes that a bundle of plagiarized material (aka Power for Abundant Living and now Power For Abundant Living Today) is anywhere even close to being considered God-breathed, God-inspired, God-authorized, or God’s-addendum to the Bible?
~ ~ ~ ~
Hey, any folks in The Way International - whether you are Way Corps, Ambassadors, Staff, or in other programs, if you are anything like me – you have a tremendous hunger to expand your knowledge of the Word of God and desire to strengthen your relationship with Jesus Christ. That’s probably the main thing that motivated me to go WOW and Way Corps…Perhaps you are a little disappointed or frustrated by the shallow dogmatism, pat answers, overly simplistic and often wierwille-centric ‘curriculum’ of The Way International…Then you owe it to yourself to look into the issues brought up on this thread. If you haven’t read it yet, check out Amazon.com: Undertow: My Escape from the Fundamentalism and Cult Control of The Way International: 9780997874709: Edge, Charlene L, Ruth Mullen, Duane Stapp: Books, some excerpts from Amazon’s description of Penworks’ book:
Undertow: My Escape from the Fundamentalism and Cult Control of The Way International™ is Charlene Edge’s riveting memoir about the power of words to seduce, betray, and, in her case, eventually save. After a personal tragedy left her bereft, teenaged Charlene rejected faith and family when recruiters drew her into The Way International, a sect led by the charismatic Victor Paul Wierwille.
The Way became one of the largest cults in America. Charlene gave it seventeen years of her life. Believing that God led her to Wierwille, she underwent his intensive two-year training program, The Way Corps, designed to produce loyal leaders…
…Eventually Charlene was promoted to the inner circle of biblical researchers, where she discovered devastating secrets: Wierwille twisted texts of Scripture to serve his personal agenda, shamelessly plagiarized the work of others, and misrepresented the purpose of his organization. Worst of all, after Wierwille died in 1985, shocking reports surfaced of his secret sex ring.
Amid chaos at The Way’s Ohio-based headquarters, Charlene knew she had to escape—for her own survival and her child’s. Reading like a novel, Undertow is not only a brilliant cautionary tale about misplaced faith but also an exposé of the hazards of fundamentalism and the destructive nature of cults. Through her personal story, Charlene Edge shows how a vulnerable person can be seduced into following an authoritarian leader and how difficult it can be to find a way out.
end of excerpts from Amazon's description of Undertow
~ ~ ~ ~
This section is for those interested in textual criticism and how we got the Bible.
*Textual criticism and origin of the Bible:
Excerpts from Wikipedia article on textual criticism:
The objective of the textual critic's work is to provide a better understanding of the creation and historical transmission of the text and its variants. This understanding may lead to the production of a critical edition containing a scholarly curated text. If a scholar has several versions of a manuscript but no known original, then established methods of textual criticism can be used to seek to reconstruct the original text as closely as possible. The same methods can be used to reconstruct intermediate versions, or recensions, of a document's transcription history, depending on the number and quality of the text available…
… In some domains, such as religious and classical text editing, the phrase "lower criticism" refers to textual criticism and "higher criticism" to the endeavor to establish the authorship, date, and place of composition of the original text…
… Textual criticism has been practiced for over two thousand years, as one of the philological arts.[4] Early textual critics, especially the librarians of Hellenistic Alexandria in the last two centuries BC, were concerned with preserving the works of antiquity, and this continued through the Middle Ages into the early modern period and the invention of the printing press. Textual criticism was an important aspect of the work of many Renaissance humanists, such as Desiderius Erasmus, who edited the Greek New Testament, creating the Textus Receptus. In Italy, scholars such as Petrarch and Poggio Bracciolini collected and edited many Latin manuscripts, while a new spirit of critical enquiry was boosted by the attention to textual states, for example in the work of Lorenzo Valla on the purported Donation of Constantine.
Many ancient works, such as the Bible and the Greek tragedies, survive in hundreds of copies, and the relationship of each copy to the original may be unclear. Textual scholars have debated for centuries which sources are most closely derived from the original, hence which readings in those sources are correct. Although texts such as Greek plays presumably had one original, the question of whether some biblical books, like the Gospels, ever had just one original has been discussed.[5] Interest in applying textual criticism to the Quran has also developed after the discovery of the Sana'a manuscripts in 1972, which possibly date back to the seventh to eighth centuries…
…Before inexpensive mechanical printing, literature was copied by hand, and many variations were introduced by copyists. The age of printing made the scribal profession effectively redundant. Printed editions, while less susceptible to the proliferation of variations likely to arise during manual transmission, are nonetheless not immune to introducing variations from an author's autograph. Instead of a scribe miscopying his source, a compositor or a printing shop may read or typeset a work in a way that differs from the autograph.[11]
Since each scribe or printer commits different errors, reconstruction of the lost original is often aided by a selection of readings taken from many sources. An edited text that draws from multiple sources is said to be eclectic. In contrast to this approach, some textual critics prefer to identify the single best surviving text, and not to combine readings from multiple sources. [12] ...
... When comparing different documents, or "witnesses", of a single, original text, the observed differences are called variant readings, or simply variants or readings. It is not always apparent which single variant represents the author's original work. The process of textual criticism seeks to explain how each variant may have entered the text, either by accident (duplication or omission) or intention (harmonization or censorship), as scribes or supervisors transmitted the original author's text by copying it. The textual critic's task, therefore, is to sort through the variants, eliminating those most likely to be un-original, hence establishing a critical text, or critical edition, that is intended to best approximate the original. At the same time, the critical text should document variant readings, so the relation of extant witnesses to the reconstructed original is apparent to a reader of the critical edition. In establishing the critical text, the textual critic considers both "external" evidence (the age, provenance, and affiliation of each witness) and "internal" or "physical" considerations (what the author and scribes, or printers, were likely to have done).[5] …
Eclecticism
Eclecticism refers to the practice of consulting a wide diversity of witnesses to a particular original. The practice is based on the principle that the more independent transmission histories there are, the less likely they will be to reproduce the same errors. What one omits, the others may retain; what one adds, the others are unlikely to add. Eclecticism allows inferences to be drawn regarding the original text, based on the evidence of contrasts between witnesses.
External evidence
External evidence is evidence of each physical witness, its date, source, and relationship to other known witnesses. Critics will often prefer the readings supported by the oldest witnesses. Since errors tend to accumulate, older manuscripts should have fewer errors. Readings supported by a majority of witnesses are also usually preferred, since these are less likely to reflect accidents or individual biases. For the same reasons, the most geographically diverse witnesses are preferred. Some manuscripts[which?] show evidence that particular care was taken in their composition, for example, by including alternative readings in their margins, demonstrating that more than one prior copy (exemplar) was consulted in producing the current one. Other factors being equal, these are the best witnesses.
The role of the textual critic is necessary when these basic criteria are in conflict. For instance, there will typically be fewer early copies, and a larger number of later copies. The textual critic will attempt to balance these criteria, to determine the original text.
There are many other more sophisticated considerations. For example, readings that depart from the known practice of a scribe or a given period may be deemed more reliable, since a scribe is unlikely on his own initiative to have departed from the usual practice.[18]
Internal evidence
Internal evidence is evidence that comes from the text itself, independent of the physical characteristics of the document. Various considerations can be used to decide which reading is the most likely to be original. Sometimes these considerations can be in conflict.[18]
Two common considerations have the Latin names lectio brevior (shorter reading) and lectio difficilior (more difficult reading). The first is the general observation that scribes tended to add words, for clarification or out of habit, more often than they removed them. The second, lectio difficilior potior (the harder reading is stronger), recognizes the tendency for harmonization—resolving apparent inconsistencies in the text. Applying this principle leads to taking the more difficult (unharmonized) reading as being more likely to be the original. Such cases also include scribes simplifying and smoothing texts they did not fully understand.[19]
Another scribal tendency is called homoioteleuton, meaning "similar endings". Homoioteleuton occurs when two words/phrases/lines end with the similar sequence of letters. The scribe, having finished copying the first, skips to the second, omitting all intervening words. Homoioarche refers to eye-skip when the beginnings of two lines are similar.[20]
The critic may also examine the other writings of the author to decide what words and grammatical constructions match his style. The evaluation of internal evidence also provides the critic with information that helps him evaluate the reliability of individual manuscripts. Thus, the consideration of internal and external evidence is related.
After considering all relevant factors, the textual critic seeks the reading that best explains how the other readings would arise. That reading is then the most likely candidate to have been original.
Canons of textual criticism
Various scholars have developed guidelines, or canons of textual criticism, to guide the exercise of the critic's judgment in determining the best readings of a text. One of the earliest was Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687–1752), who in 1734 produced an edition of the Greek New Testament. In his commentary, he established the rule Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua, ("the harder reading is to be preferred").[21]
Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812) published several editions of the New Testament. In his 1796 edition,[22] he established fifteen critical rules. Among them was a variant of Bengel's rule, Lectio difficilior potior, "the harder reading is better." Another was Lectio brevior praeferenda, "the shorter reading is better", based on the idea that scribes were more likely to add than to delete.[23] This rule cannot be applied uncritically, as scribes may omit material inadvertently.
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton Hort (1828–1892) published an edition of the New Testament in Greek in 1881. They proposed nine critical rules, including a version of Bengel's rule, "The reading is less likely to be original that shows a disposition to smooth away difficulties." They also argued that "Readings are approved or rejected by reason of the quality, and not the number, of their supporting witnesses", and that "The reading is to be preferred that most fitly explains the existence of the others."[24]
Many of these rules, although originally developed for biblical textual criticism, have wide applicability to any text susceptible to errors of transmission.
From: Textual criticism - Wikipedia
See also
Textual criticism | Definition, Examples, & Facts | Britannica
What Is Textual Criticism? Why Is the Textual Criticism of the Bible Necessary? by Don Stewart (blueletterbible.org)
Textual criticism - what is it? | GotQuestions.org
What is textual criticism? | Zondervan Academic
What Is Textual Criticism? And How Is It Different Than Translation? (logos.com)
Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia
The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?: Bruce, F. F.: 9780802822192: Amazon.com: Books
The Canon of Scripture: Bruce, F. F.: 9780830812585: Amazon.com: Books
How We Got the Bible, Third Edition: Neil R. Lightfoot: 9780801072611 - Christianbook.com
How We Got Our Bible: Third Edition: Ralph Earle: 9780834124950: Amazon.com: Books
The Origin of the Bible, Updated Edition: F. F. Bruce, J. I. Packer, Philip W. Comfort, Carl F. J. Henry: 9781414379326 - Christianbook.com
That’s all for now, folks
Edited by T-Boneclarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Does THIS pattern sound at all familiar?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
thanks Rocky !
interesting stuff - one quote
"The mind is the brain in action"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Bet!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Someday we’re going to find a manuscript that verifies this."
"“We probably won’t find a manuscript in my lifetime that verifies this, but my spiritual awareness tells me what the original has to say.”
Well, most people will look at this, if not through the lens of adoration of the speaker, and say that this is obviously an attempt by a person to disregard all the available evidence and claim something for which no evidence exists, allowing them to make ridiculous claims that contradict Scripture.
When lcm said this stuff, his go-to phrase for pulling stuff out of his sit-upon was "You'd know this if you worked The Word on this." In vpw's case, it was the manuscripts that nobody's ever seen that somehow still support vpw's claims even if they have been read by nobody and there's no proof they even exist.
Their existence is all predicated on the "spiritual awareness" of a plagiarizing rapist who lied and claimed to hear from God, who plagiarized the works of many others and still flubbed it often, who listened to conspiracy nuts then turned around and reported what they said and pretended it was Divine Revelation that told him, and got his "doctorate" from a degree mill.
Once all that is known, what kind of credibility does the speaker have? That's right- none at all. It was all smoke and mirrors. But when we didn't know any better, that nonsense played a LOT better because we trusted someone untrustworthy and thought we could trust him.
"I heard a complaint, circa 1977-78, about the research department from 2 associates or members of that department, just a month or two before they were kicked out of the 7th Corps. They told me that VPW was manipulating things and not doing valid research. "
Sure sounds like what was just documented. It's remarkably straightforward. He appealed to the authority of what was written in IMAGINARY DOCUMENTS. That's "not doing valid research" to say the least. (To say the most, it's champion-level Bullshirting to pull that and get away with it.)
"It all depends on what the goal of the research is.
(A) If the goal is to FIND truths not yet known, using only methods of the senses and logic, then the known manuscripts must be recognized as the only evidence available to work with. Everything must be built on that known evidence."
That's called "RESEARCH." That's how RESEARCH WORKS.
"(B) If the goal is to VERIFY truths already known spiritually, then unknown manuscripts may be sought in that verification.
Of course, method B is not recognized by academia at all. The possibility of spiritually knowing anything like this is denied there totally. In other words the students of the Bible forbid the Author from giving revelation to explain the Bible. They want to do it all themselves."
There's no demonstrated difference between "truths already known spiritually" and "outright bullshirt" here, neither is there one in practice. vpw was looking for imaginary manuscripts that matched what he CLAIMED to know, and is ASSUMED he knew "spiritually" because he implied that, insinuated that, and (rarely) actually said it outright. All of it rests entirely on the credibility of the claimant- and he was proven to be a liar, fraud, plagiarist.....
Academia doesn't recognize IMAGINARY MANUSCRIPTS. Nor should it. How would you feel if someone announced that everything you believed was now specifically disproven and forbidden due to an IMAGINARY MANUSCRIPT that MUST contradict you? Academia is based on what can actually be shown and entered into evidence, not things IMAGINARY. Revelation is fine, but is no substitute for actual manuscripts. This is easy for almost anyone to understand.
"The fact that the devil was the one who cleverly obscured and scrambled the originals, does not daunt these academia students. They think they can match wits with the devil and win."
The poor scholarship that can lead to statements like this are endemic to people whose lack of study led to cutting corners. vpw pulled this, and his sychophants follow along blindly- even though average students have no trouble understanding how false this is. This is the internet age, Anyone can find proof that the originals were not "scrambled", nor "obscured" nor "unreliable" nor "tattered remnants." Anyone looking through the Masoretic text and the Samaritan Pentateuch can see that the OT is remarkably well-preserved. Anyone comparing the contents of the Cairo Genizah to modern Texts can see that the NT is remarkably well-preserved- at least in Greek. (But not in Aramaic.)
"In the early days of VPW's research he knew he had to start with senses approach, or method (A). But God's assurance to him was that when he did his best and was getting stuck, the revelation would be there to get him over the hump. "
No, vpw plagiarized Bullinger and others, and made it sound as if he'd actually done research into the manuscripts. He NEVER studied them. He studied HOMILETICS, how to preach, which is an incredibly soft option compared to Bible history, Bible languages, study of manuscripts..... The "God's assurance" part is ASSUMED- based on the authority he claimed and the integrity of which he was bankrupt. We used to take his word for things before we learned it was worthless and lacked integrity.
"As time went by, it became useful to "prove" these little leaps of revelation to others to help them in their believing. Occasionally finding a manuscript that verified what God had told him would make it easier to teach others. It would also help VPW's believing for the next round of research."
No. As time went by, twi gathered people who could actually study the manuscripts. So, vpw- who lacked facility with them and even lacked real understanding of their contents- would occasionally send one of his in-house experts on a fools errand to find imaginary manuscripts that "must" exist- since he wanted some manuscript SOMEWHERE to say what he WANTED it to say. Furthermore, sending them to look over the manuscripts to see what they could learn could yield something valuable, something he could monetize, something he could claim God Almighty revealed to him.
"There were a few other reasons for this kind of Verification Research being useful.
Something to remember is this. Finding a manuscript that verifies what VPW already had committed to DOES NOT PROVE that VPW was right in that prior commitment. But it does help make it easier to believe. "
It was a fools errand that did NOT turn up the imaginary manuscripts that agreed with vpw. He admitted as much in the previous quote.
"There are ALL KINDS of manuscripts out there and hardly any ways to figure out how valid each one is. It is all guesswork. Sometimes it can be a well educated piece of guesswork. But without revelation, all Biblical research is really guesswork, especially when you factor in that the devil intelligently scrambled things for us."
That's an astonishingly- ignorant quote. It's easy to prove otherwise now, between books easy to acquire, and documentation available online 24/7. There's entire fields of study, and how one manuscript is rated above another is clear- and it is hard work. That's what distinguishes vpw from the researchers in another way- vpw always skipped the hard work. But learning HOW manuscripts are rated is NOT hard. It is painstakingly done, and anything BUT "guesswork."
All of that isn't terrible shocking from someone whose final word on things is "the limits of what vpw taught." vpw's notable IGNORANCE of the entire field was covered by his dismissal of the entire field. Seeing people STILL doing that is a shame, and they can avoid it easily. And most people do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
See? Someone with a little time and dedication can find all the information we'd like on actual research, manuscripts, and so on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
There really is not a better way to describe the “okie research” that I was getting at than this. It was learned from the master.
In reality the field has all sorts of reference checks in it. A manuscript found in South America has different scribe copy errors than a known codex so it can be verified and checked. Known first century other writings are available for comparison - historians like Josephus and others. It is a whole field. People in TWI have zero training in this field other than self reading books. It is the blind leading the blind basically in the field.
This field is also how they easily refute the Mormons. At cesletter.org some of the unanswerable questions are like “why does this supposed direct dictation from the angel Moroni have these 12th century scribe errors copied exactly?”
Without knowledge in the field the uneducated refer to superstition. Like the “cargo cults” they invent stories and rituals to bring the prosperity.
There are two whole separate cults - the Mormons and the Jehovahs Witnesses that have special people dedicated to “feeling” the “Holy Spirit” s direction to lead them to their version of truth. They are called Q15 and the Watchtower society. In TWI they are called the BOD.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I plead guilty to being an total amateur on textual analysis.
What I mean by “guesswork” is that, compared to hard core science where surety is measured with numbers, textual analysis sounds much more like qualitative sorting into categories that could be labeled “likely” or “unlikely.”
Along with my “guesswork” comments, PLEASE DON’T FORGET this one line that I deliberately put in there:
“Sometimes it can be a well-educated piece of guesswork.”
The Joseph Smith item mentioned above (12th century scribe errors copied exactly) is an example of this.
*/*/*/*/*
I also plead guilty to have, so far, only come up with a “first draft” for my take on the changes at the Research Dept, especially as the mission seemed to gradually change from searching to confirming. An unvarnished history of TWI will have to include this. I am just trying, here, to sort out the history of the Research Department and the shifting mission it had.I will be re-reading all this to see if I should modify my positions on this, especially as I collect more insider info from active posters, as well as in the archives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
This was in response to what I had posted here:
Again, I hope my "Sometimes it can be a well educated piece of guesswork" is not lost in this, but here I want to emphasize the last line:
"...especially when you factor in that the devil intelligently scrambled things for us."
I have mentioned this factor several times, but it seems to not be seen or understood.
The devil blew it when he crucified Christ, because that made it possible for millions to challenge his grip on the world like Jesus did. To thwart this the devil sought to scramble the NT enough to occlude those NT scriptures that most assisted young believers in growing up into the stature of that Christ within and become another Jesus-like challenger of the adversary's rule.
A lot of this occlusion looks like mere entropy and accident, and some may very well be that innocent.
But this scrambling would me most strategic if it included something like precision surgery, instead of utter destruction. A counterfeit copy of a scripture could actually do more damage to the learning Christians, and be even more effective than a simple gap in the manuscript.
All of the eavesdropping I've done on textual analysis tells me that this semi-science does not include the possibility of super-intelligent spirit being forgeries. I could be wrong here, and just missed the academic lingo for this possibility.
Most of the "culprits" I heard of textual analysis uncovering were human intelligence level forgeries, and scribe copying errors, and then elemental degeneration due to fire or bacteria.
The GreaseSpot reading I've done on textual analysis SEEMS to tell me that no one here considers this possibility of very devilishly direct surgical alterations. Is this a correct observation?
I would expect these kinds of forgeries to exist, because the stakes were so high. The promise of us doing all the things that Jesus Christ did and greater was seriously thwarted after the apostles died. Something cut it all off, and I don't think it was God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Mike I see how this line of logic can be appealing to people with a propensity for conspiracy theories.
The Hebrew language interpretations have always been pretty stable and similar as they have the jot and tittle markings as what they use in computers as a “checksum” marking to verify the truth of the artifact.
Greek is a little more free form. It is the basis for math and some other science is a little more precise in some ways and it’s been subject to interpretation.
The problem with the extremist isolationist fundamentalist view you are pursuing is that you discount God working in other Christians to preserve the text and working in them to understand the text.
So like VPW who made a big deal about burning his commentaries and only reading scripture not his contemporaries who are Christians also basically went the isolationist conspiracy theory route.
As his life progressed that became more and more evident in the Advanced class where eventually the statement was made that all the denominations heads were seed of the serpent.
I don’t think so. I don’t think the Pope positions have been seed of the serpent men. I think my brothers and sisters in Christ are just that, including the deluded isolationists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
No...I believe that's possible. Wierwille made many such alterations and even had books published to support his error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So once again we move it into the spiritual realm where any half baked idea is possible.
So tell me, if we accept the notion of spiritual surgical alterations, how do we know the whole bible isn't one of those forgeries?
In order to be in accordance with the great principle how would one of these spiritual forgeries come about?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Research Department at the University of Bologna
LINK
The Bologna Process for your education
LINK
Being full of Bologna, and in one Accord
LINK
Just pointing out that Bologna has higher standards and ethics than TWI Research.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Charlene's book is about as insider as you can get on this topic. You have a copy, right? Have you read it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Like for example “The Myth of the Six Million” which was for most of history part of Adv Class TWI material and Corps reading list material.
I mean anyone stupid enough to back that shiz today is gonna get blackballed faster than Yeezy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I am slowly reading it, but now that the holiday madness is finally over, I can pick up some speed. My business goes crazy just before Christmas, and the following month is always a catch-up scene. One more big rain storm and I ought to finish that reading.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Hey, I get it. It took me three months to get through PFAL - two hours every Saturday. And I never even got a thank you for enduring and persevering.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I never read those holocaust denial books (were there two?), but it was my impression that they did NOT totally deny it happened, and just challenged the large numbers like 6 million.
The PURPOSE of them (along with "The Thirteenth Tribe") them being promoted in the bookstore was to counter the POLITICAL idea that modern Israel was a restoration of God's Israel.
In the early 1970s "The Late Great Planet Earth" had rocked the USA with predictions of the Christ's Return date based on the 1949 formation of modern Israel being PROPHESY FULFILLED.
I have recently (5 years ago) seen a bunch of PFAL grads get into similar predictions of Christ's Return. People literally sell their properties in anticipation of this, and even run up their credit cards, thinking they wont have to pay if Raptured.
So, my impression was TWI was trying (pretty inefficiently) to thwart the idea of modern Israel being Biblical Israel with all those odd books in the bookstore. I did read "Thirteenth Tribe" though, because I was a lifetime science fan of Arthur Koestler, the author.
Am I right about my vague memory that the Myth Six Million merely says that the number of people killed was less than one million?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
When was that?
BTW, I always noted in the 1970s that the second and third times through the class were when the most learning happened.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Wouldn't a political idea be establishing Israel to maintain influence in the Middle East? Because oil.
Can't see why one would need conspiracy theories when the need for globalized influence was paramount.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Just my opinion here.
Introducing meta discussions of conspiracy theory is a bit too far off the beaten path of this particular topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
True – but just think if devil spirits could make scrambled eggs out of the Bible just imagine what they could do to a thread – Threggs Benedict…getting beaten up while off the beaten path beats the hell out of QAnon-like sedition…uhm… that’s if you’re even into that sorta thing… sadomasochistically speaking of course.
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.