Same to you. I do not mean to offend, and there should be nothing offensive about what you or I say. It's quite clear that whoever believes on this board will continue to do so, and of course that's their choice and right. You are also quite experienced with PCS, so I respect your advice and opinions. I know you are just trying to help people do their best to recover.

But I do think you are doing a great disservice to people by claiming that one can read the Bible as a scientific document--i.e., a document that can tell you how best to deal with emotional and psychological problems. Indeed, it is quite dangerous to do so. Those that have tried to interpret the Bible as a scientific document have been proven wrong over and over again. Galileo is one example. The Church tried to ignore the evidence he amassed against their theories (e.g., falling bodies and helliocentricity), which they claimed came from, you guessed it, the Bible. Darwin is another example.

The point is not that one shouldn't read the Bible. The point is rather that the Bible is a historical document that can't tell you how to heal, or the best methods for doing so. Prayer is a great tool for a great many people. That is fine. But thinking you can buttress that tool with exegesis of the Bible is silly and dangerous. There are likely many tidbits of information in the Bible that one can muster in support of a more general approach to thinking or healing (and likewise for terrible theories and actions); but there is no reason to think these tidbits are anything more than reading onto an existing method or theory, as you seem to be doing with CBT.

Also, trying to muster evidence for such reading is always challenging: "Taking every though captive " dates back millennia. It was widely taught in the first century AD and the other commands and teachings such as "Be still" date back a few thousand years earlier. The positive impact on society and individuals is well documented."

What has had a "positive impact"? Just these words, or some other meditative framework, or something else? To what extent? To whom? Under what conditions? How and where has it been "well documented"? By whom? When? For what purposes? Under what conditions? What does "well documented" even mean? These are conclusions, not evidence or reasoning.

Even if these phrases have been used as part of some larger meditation or prayer framework, it's not clear why reliance on the Bible itself is necessary. Indeed, cherry-picking phrases that seem to have benefits while ignoring the rest does not aid one's recovery or one's understanding of the Bible (or whatever document they are reading). One may be able to find a good way of dealing with pain by relying in part on some Bible verses. Indeed, if one is forced to cherry pick phrases and interpret them onto a theory, one wonders why those phrases are relevantly part of the exercise at all. The theory itself seems to do the work in these cases.

I don't understand why "[t]rying to explain the power of prayer to a non-believer is next to impossible." I think I understand it quite well. I understand what people are trying to do and what they think they are doing. I have (prior) personal experience in the matter, just like you. I think the exercise itself can be useful, but the method for doing it often presupposes a grandiosity that it simply does not require and does not exist.

Best to you, and good luck with your manuscript.