Background: This list began as an attempt to refute
the contention that the written works of Victor Paul
Wierwille, founder of The Way International, are the "God-breathed" equivalent of Holy Scripture. In
compiling this list, it was not my intention (or anyone else's) to demean Wierwille, judge him, or even
question his motives. The only goal was to show that, by its own standards, PFAL disqualifies itself as the "God
necessary, first, to summarize how Wierwille defined "God-breathed." The term is taken from II
Timothy 3:16, which states that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." Those last five words are one word in
the Greek, and can be literally translated "Godbreathed." It was Wierwille's
contention that if the Word of God is "God-breathed," then it will have no
errors and no contradictions in it. To underscore this point,
Wierwille went so far as to say that if a different preposition were used for
the word "with" in John 1:1, the whole Bible would "fall to pieces."
feel this sets a remarkably low
threshold of proof to establish
something as an "actual error," disqualifying PFAL and the remainder of
Wierwille's books according to their very own definition of
"God-breathed." Any one of the errors we submit should be enough to
claim that PFAL is God-breathed, according to the book's very own
It is our
belief that Wierwille himself never considered his own works to be "God-breathed," and this list is not
meant to refute him. However, there does exist a group of Wierwille followers, however small, who consider
PFAL and Wierwille's other books to be divinely
we distinguish between "actual errors" and "errors of interpretation." An actual error is
indisputable. There is simply no room for disagreement. If Wierwille wrote that
"two plus two equals five," or that "c-a-t spells dog," those would be actual
errors. We have no interest in debating the Trinity, dispensationalism, the state of the dead or the timing of the rapture.
Wierwille may or may not have been
mistaken on one or all of those issues. But those are theological arguments too grand for the scope of this work. Actual errors are easier than that.
acknowledge that some people may challenge the status of some of these "actual
errors," and will refer to them under "discussion." Updates will be added
pending further input from readers, and errors may be removed (with
explanation) if we feel the challenge effectively refutes the alleged error. To
respond to this list or challenge the errors, please write to me at Rafael@livingepistlessociety.org.
Editor's note: The original PDF version of this article, as originally composed by Rafael Olmeda can be downloaded here.
If you would like to propose additions to the list, or participate in the discussion of it, see the the forum topic the information for this list originated from: Actual Errors in PFAL
In PFAL, Wierwille writes that David is called "a
man after God's own heart" AFTER the events in II Samuel related to Bathsheba
and Uriah. "Then it says in the Word of God..." he writes.
In truth, David is called "a man after God's own
heart" indirectly, in I Samuel, long before he is king, long before he met Bathsheba. He is called this again in Acts 13:22, which is
clearly speaking of a time before the
incident with Bathsheba and Uriah, her husband. While speaking of a time after
this incident, the Bible never refers to David as "a man after God's own
heart." It says he sinned. It says he repented. It says he got right with God.
But it never says in the Word of God that David was a man after God's own heart.
In PFAL, Wierwille writes that there is no word
"lama" in the Aramaic.
In truth, there IS such a word in Palestinian
Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke. It means "why?"
In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the word "lama"
should probably be replaced with "lmna," "for this purpose," which is "always a
cry of victory, a declaration of ‘for this purpose.'"
In truth, "lmna" can also be used in a question,
in which case it will not be "for this purpose," but,
identically to "lama," it would be translated "why?"
something Wierwille acknowledged near the end of his life, and which is
acknowledged in TWI's very own Aramaic Interlinear.
In PFAL, Wierwille notes the distinction between "thoroughly" and "throughly."
In truth, the latter is an archaic form of the
former. They mean precisely the same thing (Wierwille failed to follow his own
principle of interpreting words according to their Biblical usage).
Discussion: We understand and acknowledge that Wierwille was trying to teach the principle of reading that which is written. That principle is valid, and this is a good example
of the need to read the Bible carefully.
But Wierwille was in error when he explained the distinction between "thoroughly" and "thoroughly."
There is no distinction.
In PFAL: Wierwille writes of the difference
between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven.
In truth: The Bible uses these terms
interchangeably. There is no difference whatsoever in their usage. While honest
writers have sought to draw distinctions between them, the truth is that there
are none. Only the Gospel of Matthew uses the term "Kingdom
of Heaven," and when other gospels
offer parallel accounts of identical sayings of Jesus, the term used is "Kingdom of God." This proves that the two are identical.
In PFAL: Wierwille writes that apistia is the kind of unbelief held by people who don't know
enough to believe, while apeitheia is the kind of unbelief held by people
who've heard enough, but don't care.
In truth: the word "apistia" is used of the
disciples after the resurrection (Mark 16:14) and of Israel (Romans 3:
1-3). Neither can be said to have not heard enough to believe.
Discussion: It's interesting to note that newer Bible translations render apeitheia as "disobedience," not
In PFAL: Wierwille defines "apostle" as one who brings new light to his generation. It may be old light, but it is new to the
generation that hears it.
In truth: "apostle" means "sent one." It simply
does not carry the definition Wierwille applies to it.
In PFAL: Wierwille writes that "all without
distinction" means anyone within a specific category.
In truth: basic grammar should be enough to tell
us that all in a certain category means "all WITH distinction," the distinction
being membership in that category. This error is so fundamentally blatant that
Wierwille himself corrected it in Jesus Christ is Not God and at least one other book. This actual error is,
therefore, accompanied by an
actual contradiction in Wierwille's writings (if we were to take Wierwille's
writings as "God-breathed," we would be forced to conclude that "all without distinction"
and "all with distinction" mean the same thing)!
In PFAL: Wierwille writes that the gospels are addressed to a period before the day of Pentecost, to
Israel and Gentiles but
"never to the Church
In truth: the gospels are all written after
Pentecost and are all addressed to a period after Pentecost. They are
written to practicing Christians as much as to Jews and Gentiles.
Discussion: The gospels were written for several reasons. As time passed after the events described
therein, heresies arose as to the nature of Christ. It became necessary for followers of Christ to set a clear account of Christ's
mission and doctrine so that
believers would not be confused as to his identity. The opening of Luke makes
it clear that the message is intended for practicing Christians. The conclusion of
John makes it clear that the gospels are also written so that those who read
them may become Christians.
Wierwille written that the gospels are about a period before Pentecost, he might be correct. One must accept a dispensational
view of scripture to accept all that is implied in this premise. That argument
is beyond the scope of this work.
In PFAL: Wierwille states that in Luke 2, Jesus
was taken to the Temple
at age 12 instead of 13 because he was considered illegitimate, and
illegitimate children were considered men a year earlier than other children.
Wierwille makes specific mention of the bar-mitzvah ceremony that Jewish boys
undergo at age 13, and cites an "old piece of literature," which he never
identifies, as his only evidence that illegitimate children were treated
differently for this purpose.
In truth: the passage in Luke 2 has nothing
whatsoever to do with bar-mitzvah. The passage states rather clearly that they
were celebrating Passover, not Jesus' bar mitzvah. In addition, there is no such custom in Judaism (treating illegitimate
children differently for the purpose of bar-mitzvah). Wierwille's failure to
recall the "old piece of literature" leaves us with no
ability to verify its accuracy. At best, this claim is baseless
Discussion: This entry resulted in a lively debate
that, in my opinion, only served to underscore the extent of the
error while bringing another error to light. In the PFAL book, Wierwille never directly states that Jesus went to
undergo a bar-mitzvah ceremony. He only
states that illegitimate children were considered men at
the age of 12 instead of 13. The Bible does not teach that, nor can we find any other source which verifies it,
old piece of literature or new. The bar-mitzvah ceremony originated in the Middle Ages, so could not
have been carried out in Jesus' time. Nonetheless, it is
possible and likely that there was some recognition of a "coming of age" at age 12 or 13.
home studies that accompanied the Power for Abundant Living class, students were asked to read this
section of the PFAL book and then answer a question specifically asking why Jesus went to the Temple
undergo bar-mitzvah at the age of 12 instead of 13. The
question itself is riddled with error. Jesus did not go to the Temple for
bar-mitzvah. He went for Passover with
his family. The rest of the error has already been discussed above. We also note that Wierwille required
students to complete the Home Studies questions in order to be allowed into the Advanced Class on Power
For Abundant Living. That requirement indicates that he accepted the premise of the Home Studies question,
which was clearly in error.
discussion became even more fascinating as it led into the next entry.
In PFAL: Wierwille writes that the people in
Jesus' hometown did not believe in him because they
considered him illegitimate.
In truth: The Bible very clearly states, on
several occasions, that Jesus was considered to be the son of
Joseph and Mary. It says it specifically about the people in Jesus' hometown.
There is nothing at all in the Bible to suggest that anyone believed Jesus to
be an illegitimate child.
Discussion: The Pharisees may have accused Jesus of being "born of fornication" in John 8, but
a careful examination of that record reveals that they were more likely defending
themselves against Jesus' charge that they are not Abraham's children (Jesus
was speaking figuratively, which went over their heads). There is no basis to suggest that they considered
Jesus to be anything other than the son of Joseph.
In PFAL: Wierwille writes that no one in Israel had the right to criticize King David for taking Bathsheba, the
wife of another man, because David was king and "technically every woman in the kingdom belonged to
In truth: The word "technically" establishes this
as an absolute error. "Technically" means that we should be able to find
something in Jewish law or culture that allows for a king to simply seize another man's wife
because she belongs to the king. There is nothing in Jewish law or culture to suggest this. In fact, this very record disproves it.
The claim fails on every level: legal, cultural, historical and Biblical.
In PFAL: Wierwille writes that the "original" text
has "God" as the first word of the Bible.
In truth: All available texts in the oldest known
Biblical language, Hebrew, say bereshith (in
the beginning) barah (created) Elohim (God) ha-shamayim wa ha-erets (the heavens and the earth).
Discussion: Even if one believes "Bereshith" was the
original title of the book of Genesis, it still means the first word of the
Bible is "barah," not "Elohim."
In PFAL: Wierwille writes that Nathan was afraid
to confront David during the Bathsheba episode. Specifically, he states that he was afraid of being
beheaded. He further states that had Nathan gone to David with any other story other than the one he told, David would, in fact,
have beheaded the prophet.
In truth: There is simply nothing in the Bible to substantiate any of this.
Discussion: The first part of what Wierwille writes
can be written off as a didactic technique. Wierwille is telling a story and embellishing on the Biblical record, which is a legitimate teaching device. God did tell
Nathan to confront David, and it might be fun to
speculate about that conversation. One could just as easily speculate that Nathan was eager to confront
David, but whether he was afraid or eager, we do not know, because the Bible
simply does not say. To state further that David would have chopped Nathan's head off brings this story from speculation to
In Receiving the Holy Spirit Today: Wierwille writes that Jesus was instructing the apostles concerning how
to receive holy spirit in John 20:22, and that instead of "he breathed on them," the verse should read, "he breathed in."
In truth: The following is quoted from an article
by Douglas Morton. I've checked some of the references, enough to convince me that
he is correct.
word enephusasen be translated as ‘to breathe in' or
‘inhale'? Wierwille would certainly have the reader believe so. However, the evidence does not
support this translation. The New Testament can offer no help because it is
found only in John 20:22. The verb used in this text is an aorist, active,
indicative, third person, singular form of the Greek word emphusao.
While it is not used in any other place in the New
Testament, it is used 11 times in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
case, the word carries with it the meaning of ‘to blow upon' and not ‘to
breathe in' or ‘inhale.' The classic example of the use of this word is recorded in Genesis 2:7 in the
Septuagint. God formed man from the dust of the ground and ‘breathed upon (enephusesen) his face the breath of life.'
glance at various Greek lexicons also helps in understanding the meaning of
this word. Liddell-Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon gives the basic meaning of the word as ‘blow in.' Bauer, Arndt,
Ginrich and Danker's A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature gives the meaning of the word as ‘breathe on.' Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament gives the meaning as
‘to blow' or ‘breathe on.' Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament gives the meaning as ‘to breathe upon' or ‘over.' Even E.W. Bullinger's Lexicon, which is used by The Way, gives
the meaning of the word as ‘to breathe upon, blow upon.'
unanimous evidence, therefore, shows that the word means to ‘blow upon' or ‘breathe upon.' Jesus was
not inhaling in John 20:22. He was not showing his disciples what they were to do on the day of Pentecost.
He actually breathed upon them and said ‘receive the Holy Spirit.'"
In PFAL: Wierwille writes that the Greek word for "rightly dividing" is orthotomounta.
In truth: The Greek word for "rightly dividing" is orthotomeo. The word orthotomounta
does not appear in the New Testament.
In PFAL: Wierwille writes, "The first word in II Timothy 2:15 is ‘study.' The very first thing a person must do to rightly
divide the Word is study. He is not told to study commentaries or ecular
writers; he must study The Word."
In truth: The word "study" in II Timothy 2:15
would more accurately be translated "endeavor." It does not
mean "study" in the way Wierwille uses it. The NIV translates it "do your best." So does the Contemporary
English Version. The New Living Translation renders it "work hard."
Discussion: Wierwille is deliberately using a mistranslated word to prove his point. The point itself is valid: studying
God's Word is a good thing. But that is not the point of that particular word.
The strange thing is, Wierwille knows this. His chapter on "Study: Be
Diligent" in The Bible Tells Me
So makes that clear. So why
allow the mistake to remain? If the accuracy of the Bible is such a big deal,
why rely on an inaccurate translation to make your point?
In PFAL: Wierwille writes that the word
"replenish" in Genesis 1:28 implies that the earth was filled before that time,
then wiped out, and that God was instructing Adam and Eve to fill it again.
In truth: Whether or not that is theologically
true (and there are arguments on both sides), the word "replenish" does not
prove that point. The key is understanding the original Hebrew word, not its
flawed English translation. The Hebrew word merely means "fill."
In PFAL: Wierwille writes that the term
"Christian" is a mockery of the expression "Christ in you." Believers in the
first century spoke frequently of having "Christ in" you that their critics
came to call them "Christ in" and later Christian.
In truth: That might, maybe explain the origin of the term, if the first
century believers spoke English. The believers in question spoke Greek.
The word "Christian" is Christianos. It means follower of Christ. It does not mean "Christ in"
any more than Italian means "Italy
in," or Berean means "Berea in."
In Christians Should Be Prosperous: Wierwille writes that throughout the
Bible, material prosperity has always hinged on tithing.
In truth: The falsity of this statement is too
simple for words. Abraham had material prosperity before he
tithed. Jacob had material prosperity before he tithed. The Egyptians probably did not tithe, and had great
wealth. There's no reason to believe Job ever tithed at
any time ever, yet he prospered greatly prior to his calamity, and he prospered greatly afterward. There are
people who do not tithe, yet prosper. There are people who tithe, yet do not prosper. Tithing is clearly not the
hinge for prosperity.
In Jesus Christ Our Passover: Wierwille writes that modern Jews are the descendants of the Khazars.
In truth: Some modern Jews are the descendants of Khazars. Most are not.
Discussion: Wierwille misinterpreted parts of the
book The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler. The main
thesis of Koestler's book has been pretty much debunked by science and history. Genetic studies
conducted in the mid-1990s establish that European Jews share key genetic markers with the Sephardim,
who are decidedly not the descendants of the Khazars. Information regarding that study is available upon
In Jesus Christ Our Passover: Wierwille writes that Yiddish is the Khazar language written with Hebrew
In truth: Yiddish is a dialect of German and has
little to nothing to do with the Khazar language.
In PFAL: Wierwille wrote that in the Old
Testament, spirit was "upon" believers, but not "in" them, as with New
In truth: In Numbers 27:18, God Himself says the
spirit is in Joshua. Also note Exodus 28:3; 31:3; 35:31; and Nehemiah 9:30.
Discussion: Joel 2:29 which is a prophecy referring
to the future outpouring of spirit, uses the word "upon."
Ironic, since it's the one time it should say "in" according to Wierwille's statement.
In PFAL: Wierwille writes that God can only speak
to that which He is, namely, spirit.
In truth: Leaving aside the presumptive fact that
God can speak to whomever He chooses, whenever He chooses, however He chooses, this statement fails purely on a mechanical basis.
In order to communicate with
people, God has to do one of two things. He must either come into concretion
(ie, use a voice, a burning bush, whatever) or he must place His spirit on or
in someone. The spirit then speaks to our minds... but how? If God, who is
spirit, cannot speak to our minds, how can the spirit He places within us speak
to our minds? And if the spirit within us CAN speak to our minds, why can't God? And by the way, isn't "coming into concretion" in and of itself a
contradiction of the statement "God can only speak to that which He is?" The
answer is, yes.
Wierwille states that unless you have the spirit, God has to come into
concretion to speak to you. There's no Biblical evidence to support this. What of God communicating with
un-anointed folks like King Abimelech (Gen 20:3) and Laban, Jacob's crooked father-in-law
(Gen 31:24) by dreams? Dreams are not in the five senses. Therefore, they are a
communication from God to the recipient, through their minds, without the
Discussion: Wierwille's thesis is meaningless. God Almighty can speak to anyone or anything. He may have different ways of
communicating with different people, but He can speak to anyone.
In Jesus Christ is Not God: Wierwille writes that God can only give
that which He is, namely, spirit.
In truth: God is love. He can give love. God gave manna. God is not manna.
Discussion: This error, along with the one above it,
is amusing as it comes from the same person who wrote a chapter called "Are You
In PFAL: Wierwille writes that God created man's spirit, made man's soul, and formed man's body. He
writes that these terms are used precisely.
In truth: The Bible does say God formed man's
body. It never says He made man's soul. It says He created man
in His image, but does not define "His image" as spirit. (Wierwille says God is spirit, therefore His image is
spirit. That hardly proves his case, as the Bible also says
God is love. Why not say His image is love?) In Genesis, God also says "Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness." So the words "make" and "create" are used to describe the same act. Therefore, despite his
insistence that the words are not synonymous, they are clearly used synonymously in this highly relevant case.
The only scripture that specifically states how God placed spirit within man is Zechariah 12:1. It does not
use "created." It does not use "made." It uses... "formed!" Wierwille's Bible just crumbled
Discussion: Wierwille attempted to employ a logical framework that
crumbled on close examination. It wasn't enough to say God made us with bodies, souls and spirits?
In PFAL: Wierwille writes that Jesus Christ came
so that we could have a life that's more than abundant.
In truth: Wierwille cautions against adding to the Word, subtracting from the Word, or changing the
Word. Doing so leaves you with something that is not God's Word, he warned. Yet
in the opening pages of the PFAL book, Wierwille takes John 10:10 and violates
the rules he would later establish. He changes "abundantly" to "abundant," and
he adds the word "than" so that
instead of Jesus coming so that we could have
"life...more abundantly," he comes so that we could
have a life that's "more than abundant." He added a
word, changed a word, and changed the order of the
words. Does this change the meaning of the verse? According to Wierwille, it must, for once you do those things, you no longer
have God's Word. Wierwille
clearly used the term to speak of material prosperity, and lamented that unbelievers manifest a "more
abundant life" than
believers do. But clearly, an "abundant life" by Wierwille's definition was
available before Christ came. So Christ must have been speaking of something
other than the abundance of possessions that even many unbelievers manifest.
In Receiving the Holy Spirit Today: Wierwille writes that the Greek word laleo means speaking without regard to the words being spoken.
In truth: That's
gibberish (pun intended). An examination of the verses in which this word is used
proves conclusively that Wierwille's definition makes no sense. Examples
include Matthew 12:34; Matthew 12:46; Matthew 26:13
Discussion: Jerry Barrax writes: "The vast majority
of the uses of this word are in the context of preaching or
witnessing. It's even used in a backward sense because when Jesus and the apostles were falsely accused of
speaking blasphemies, laleo is the word used. So it may perhaps be most narrowly defined as to proclaim or
speak boldly, as opposed to the word "say" or "said" which is usually translated from the word lego. Lego,
which is used over 1,300 times, seems to have a more casual meaning than laleo. But the PFAL definition that
implies inspired utterance and the bypassing of conscious thought is not derived from Biblical research."
In PFAL: Wierwille writes that the Greek word heteros means "another, when only two are involved," while the
Greek word allos means "another, when more than two may be
In truth: The words are synonymous and darn near interchangeable. If there are distinctions in their
meaning, those distinctions are not the ones drawn by Wierwille. A blatant contradiction of Wierwille's
definitions can be found by comparing Matthew 5:39 (for allos) and Luke 4:43 (for heteros).
Discussion: Bullinger writes that allos means "another of the same kind," whereas heteros means "another of a different kind." I don't know how
consistent that distinction is either, but I do know there are strong
examples to back it up.
Once again Jerry Barrax put it best.
Citing Matthew 5:39 and Luke 4:43, he wrote:
to VP's definitions, we would guess that the first ‘other' is heteros because a man only has two cheeks and that the second is allos because
there may have been more than two other cities involved. And we would be dead
verses are Matthew 5:39, in which allos is used of the other cheek, and Luke 4:43, in which heteros is used
referring to ‘other cities.' Of course there are verses in
which these words are used according to VP's definition, but the fact that they seem to be
interchangeable in the whole of the New Testament defuses the claim that the ‘sharp accuracy' of God's
Word demanded that heteros be used in Luke 23:32 and
allos in John 19:32. [Jerry is referring to Wierwille's
analysis of the word "other" in his discussion of how
many people were crucified with Christ]. Of the 94 uses
of heteros in the NT, only about 20% of them fit Weirwille's definition. That's not very
In PFAL: Wierwille draws a distinction between
"faith" and "believing." He claims that Old Testament believers couldn't have
"faith" because faith only became available with
the accomplished work of Jesus Christ. Old Testament believers could "believe,"
he writes, but they could not "have faith."
In truth: It would be tempting to say that "faith"
and "believing" are Biblically synonymous, but the truth is even simpler than
that: In Greek, as even Wierwille acknowledges, they are the exact same word, pistis.
Hebrews 11 lists a whole slew
of Old Testament believers, and
explains to role of faith in their lives. Wierwille arbitrarily mandates that the word pistis
should be translated
"believing" in those verses, oblivious to
the fact that changing the translation does not change the original Greek word.
Discussion: Wierwille's explanation of the
difference between "faith" (pistis) and "believing" (pistis) is based on a
tortured interpretation of Galatians 3:23, which speaks of a
time "before faith came." According to Wierwille, there was a time when faith had not come. But that's an ENGLISH
explanation. The Bible was not written in English. The verse in question was
written in Greek. If Wierwille were honest about this section, he would argue
that there was a time before pistis had
come. But that would be provably false, as noted by
Hebrews 11. So Wierwille creates two translations of pistis and separates them by time: namely, Pentecost.
problem is, he draws the distinction in English, but does not look for differences in Greek. Had he gone a
step further, he would have seen that the Greek text of Galatians 3 contains the definite article, which is not
clear in the English translation. The text actually reads "before THE faith came." Throughout the passage,
"THE Faith" is contrasted with "THE law." What is "THE faith" throughout Galatians 3? It is clearly referring
to that which Christ accomplished. And it makes sense that Old Testament believers could not
have faith in all Christ accomplished, because Christ had yet to accomplish it.
It would be like expecting us to express faith that Christ has returned. He hasn't, so we can't have faith in
In Jesus Christ is Not God: Wierwille writes (after quoting John 1:18): "The next part of this verse reads ‘...
the only begotten Son...' The Greek words are ho monogenes huios. Ho is the article bringing a special
emphasis to his being the only begotten Son. Monogenes
is a combination of the word monos which means ‘only'
and genos which means ‘offspring,' ‘nation,' ‘race'
‘family.' (English derives the word ‘gene' directly from
genos. Christ was genetically God's only Son).
this word means ‘only offspring' or ‘only begotten.' The usage of this Greek word in the New Testament is
always found in the context of one and only one offspring."
In truth: In Hebrews 11, Isaac is called Abraham's monogenes, "only begotten son," and we know for a
fact that Abraham had more than one offspring.
Discussion: Wierwille's definition of the word is correct, but he failed to note that the word monogenes
can and is used in a figure
of speech in Hebrews 11:17.
That figurative usage is NOT in the sense of one and only one offspring. The usage in Hebrews 11:17 is one
be that monos, meaning one, and genos, meaning "kind" (a definition Wierwille peculiarly
omitted), were combined to form not only the literal
term "only begotten," but also the figurative term "unique," (ie, "one of a kind")?
In Jesus Christ is Not God: Wierwille writes: "There was no
pronounceable name for the true God, in contrast to pagan gods who were always
called by name."
In truth: God's name was both pronounceable and pronounced.
Frequently. The name appears so many
times in the Old Testament that your Young's
Concordance won't quote each line: it merely lists all
the verses for most of four columns. I mean, we are
literally talking about, what, a couple of thousand usages
in the Old Testament? Would you believe the answer is
close to 7,000?
Hebrews pronounced this name. They did so frequently. Most people don't know that the term "thus saith the LORD" is not frequently found in the Bible.
Nope. It's the name, not the word "Lord," which appears in those verses.
a proper name. It was pronounceable and pronounced, many times. The original pronunciation
may be lost to us, but to write, as Wierwille did, that
there was no pronounceable name for God reflects a
REMARKABLE ignorance of the Biblical usage of
God's proper name, Yahweh.
In The Bible Tells Me So: Wierwille writes that Matthew 27:5 is a summary of Judas' life after the
betrayal, and that it does not mean the things there happened in quick succession. He then writes that the term "hanged himself"
refers to different types of suicide, and
specifically says Judas impaled himself on a stake (mentioned in Acts 1).
However, in Jesus Christ Our Passover, Wierwille goes into detail about how "Judas hanged himself" really means that he went away choked with grief.
In truth: Quite simply, one of these explanations
has got to be wrong. If Wierwille was right the first time, then the events did
not happen in quick succession. If Wierwille was right the second time, then
the events DID happen in quick succession. If Wierwille was right the first time, then
"hanged himself" was a clear reference to
Judas' death. If Wierwille was right the
second time, "Hanged himself" was clearly NOT a reference to Judas' death.
How do we
handle this error? Simple. Further research into Matthew 27:5 led Wierwille to change his mind.
Perfectly acceptable. None of us should lose any sleep over it, unless you hold that all of Wierwille's books
God-breathed and therefore free from error or contradiction. If that's your position, then the burden is
on you to explain why and how Wierwille contradicted
people contributed to the compilation of this list for me to take credit for
writing it. This began as a thread on the "Greasespot Café" discussion board.
people contributed, and some of the observations are lifted in their entirety from the
Greasespot Café posts written by others. This is
especially so for errors 28 and 29, which were just about entirely written by Jerry Barrax. Unfortunately, not
everyone has contacted me about properly crediting them with their assistance and observations. You know
who you are, and you know how much I appreciate all the contributions you made to this list. I'm not excluding
you: I just don't know if you want your name or
"handle" associated with this document, and I await your permission. I do not take credit for writing all of
the above, but I do take credit (and blame) for putting the list together, boiling down the arguments to
So let me thank, in no particular order:
Karl Kahler, author of The Cult That Snapped: A
Journey Into The Way International
Jerry Barrax, poster at the Greasespot Café message
a note is necessary about Jerry. At the old Waydale message board (now defunct), Jerry was the first poster to attempt an
analytical review of PFAL.
Even those who disagreed with his conclusions were in awe of his unflinching
honesty in approaching the
material he once considered sacrosanct. He deserves
credit for many of the observations on this list, and in some ways, for
Tom Joyce, a.k.a. "Oakspear".
Reece Watkins, a.k.a. "Zixar".