Leaderboard

It is almost impossible to overstate how much this reeks of bullcrap. I'll be gentle: If Euclidian geometry were wrong on one point, Euclidian geometry would be perfectly content to remove that one point and salvage all the others. This is not true of PFAL and God's Word. By PFAL's standard, if the wrong pronoun is used in the wrong place, the entire word of God falls to pieces. Nothing in Euclidian geometry makes that kind of assertion about the whole of geometry. Further, let's dispense with the intelligence-insulting conditional "if" in your opening sentence. We produced more than 30 such contradictions and errors, even after handicapping ourselves with a ludicrously generous definition of "error," and for you to come here 20 years later and say "IF there are contradictions" is such a craptacular crapfest of crappy crap that it needs to be flushed before toilet paper is applied because no septic or sewage system could handle the volume. By the way, to avoid an allegation of plagiarism, the old poster Mr. PMosh gets partial credit for the preceding paragraph. If PFAL were God-breathed, it would be correct about the characteristics of the God-breathed Word. And if it were God-breathed and therefore correct about the characteristics of the God-breathed Word, it would share those characteristics. It doesn't. We've demonstrated it time and again. In 20 years, you have not adequately addressed a single demonstrated error/contradiction. You just pretend they don't exist. Dodge. Distract. Deny. Never admit an error is an error. It's dishonest handling of "The Word" and it would insult our intelligence if it were possible for us to think any lesser of your tactics.

To me the hilarious thing in all of this is that the verse in question [knowing this first] has nothing at all to do with interpreting the scripture. That's a bad translation. Wierwille comes SO CLOSE to revealing this, but it would undermine his larger point, so he lets the bad translation stand instead of out and out correcting it. However, if you apply the keys to How the Bible Interprets Itself, you're left to conclude that this verse does not illustrate what PFAL uses it to illustrate. This verse is talking about the ORIGIN of scripture, not about the reader trying to understand it. So the whole doctrine of "private interpretation" is misleading. The Bible never says to avoid it [because it's the world's least necessary instruction. You never saw Stan Lee worrying about people privately interpreting Spider-Man. The Bible assumes its meaning to be clear, and the section of II Peter 1 containing this instruction is telling its readers that "we" [I no longer include myself in that pronoun, so, y'all] are not following cleverly devised fables dreamed up by man, but real doctrines revealed by God. That is, of course, if you still believe Peter wrote II Peter, but that's another can of worms and off-topic here. Here we assume for the sake of this discussion that Peter wrote his epistles, and we discuss accordingly. In that vein, Peter was not talking about the meaning of scripture. He was discussing its origin.

I Cor 3:17 God chose the figure of speech personification in an extended allegory here. OT times people had a building associated with worship. The new gospel of Jesus Christ has the collective group as personifying worship of God. When Christians gather it is something God loves, it is kind of like He is saying enjoy each other that’s the worship I want. Not all the Towers of Babel man constructs.

No, you're probably the first. Seriously?

Hey, Mike remember in PFAL wierwille said something about occurrence of errors could be due to a proofreader’s oversight ( an unintentional failure to notice something) or an interpolation (to alter or corrupt something, such as a text by inserting new or foreign matter)…well, that explains my quick reply to your post. It wasn’t until much later when I came back and read OldSkool’s comment…and he isolated and highlighted your text “I have laid the foundational class, so each student can build on the solid concrete” . Only THEN did I realize I had failed to notice your insertion of the foreign ideas “foundational class” and “student”, which are subliminal references to PFAL. Those terms were NOT germane to the images of structures and building materials mentioned in I Corinthians 3 and seem out of place. It exemplifies the dishonesty and incongruity of TWI’s literal translation according to usage at their worst…Not only that - it also seems like a snub - showing disdain…it’s disingenuous…you’ve ignored what I said on this thread and another about avoiding hidden agendas - see here and here . Mike, I am sorry to rain on your parade and I also apologize to anyone if my initial response to Mike’s post caused some confusion or seemed uncharacteristic of my usual passion for good Bible study methods. I’m not so much slow on the uptake as sometimes I am often too quick to establish common ground and play well with others …And thanks to OldSkool for your vigilance!

Living Document Wikipedia Link The Living Word Speaks? Not the Dead Sea Scrolls Up? Scripture Interprets It-self. VPW treated the bible as a dead document. Getting "back" to the original intent. That was the whole promise. Scripture interprets itself . . . that's why God had to explain it to VPW so he could teach it to others for a tiny fee and a lifetime commitment. Cause someone has to explain how God had to explain that VPW had to explain that no explanation is necessary.

Scripture, The Bible, is not *a* language. "It interprets itself", though.