Raf

Actually, the person who imposed that standard on the Bible is VPW, not me. One preoposition out of place, and it CRUMBLES. That's what VPW said about the Bible. I'm only guilty of applying that same standard to VPW's written works. I think the remainder of your thesis is hogwash. Impossible or rare to have a true understanding and relationship with Christ without the PFAL writings? Hogwash. Believe it if you want, and I wish you well, but that thesis is nonsense.

Honest observation, no criticism intended or implied: I see two things being discussed here, simultaneously. First, whether Wierwille presented a coherent doctrine concerning our fellowship with Jesus Christ. Second, whether his presentation/doctrine was correct. Am I reading this thread correctly?

mull mull mull... all right. none of my bidness. I'll shaddap. Carry on.

I'm going to agree with Zix on this one. The question of whether VPW laced his teaching with a "ubiquitously hidden" thesis may not be doctrinal, but the presentation and discussion of his doctrine on our relationship with Christ is, by definition, a doctrinal discussion.

WordWolf: I am well aware of his theory, old friend. Thanks for the reminder. Mike's having fun believing God gave us His Word in pure form. Fine, let him have his fun. Let him take as much time as he wants. Five years. Five more years. If he's honest, he'll come to an honest conclusion. If he's deluded, then logic won't penetrate his thinking. Such is life. LarryP: I could get all the credibility with Mike right now by abandoning reason and honest questions. "Believe first, then you see." Wierwille didn't write the books....God wrote the books...Wierwille didn't write the books...God wrote the books... Now come on, this thread is not about MIKE. It's about the errors. Let's stay on topic. :)-->

Don't know how to do logos or fancy stuff. Happy birthday, Galen.

Mike, you're so sadly mistaken about us, about our motives, and about how we spend our time. You arrogantly presume that we read PFAl and/or the other books solely for the purpose of finding errors. You're reading comprehension must be pretty bad: the fact that errors is the purpose of this thread does NOT mean errors is the purpose of our overall reading of Wierwille's books. To the contrary, the purpose of this thread is strictly to challenge your thesis. Your presumption that we're digging ourselves into a hole because of our attitude toward handling PFAL is a misreading of this thread and our posts. It doesn't surprise me that you would be so sadly mistaken about this thread, as it is an extension of your pathetic misreading of Wierwille himself. For the record, once again, it is not my opinion that you should be compelled to address all of these errors: it IS, however, my opinion that you must address them if you expect ME to take you seriously. I can only speak for myself (though I expect others agree with me). I won't fall for your "accept my thesis and the errors will evaporate" approach because, frankly, I see what it has done to you: it has turned you into an arrogant, intellectually dishones slanderer who relies on "God told me I'm right" to prove a point and would rather speculate (incorrectly) about my priorities rather than address our honest questions. So, take your time answering these. Or don't answer them at all. No one's forcing you to do anything. But keep your slander to yourself. The more you speculate about my motives, the more arrogant and ignorant you prove yourself to be.

Mike, Your approval, coming as it does after months of disingenuous and ignorant attacks on our character, means nothing to me at this point. Now, as regards the substance of your post: I don't think Wierwlle meant "spiritual" progeny when he said "Cain's progeny." I think he blew it. But what I think is very different than the cold declaration, "this is an error." So I'm inclined to not pursue it. However, at first reading, Mr. Hammeroni appears to have pointed out a bona fide error. In no way, shape or form was Ahab Jeroboam's son. You may try to hide behind the "spiritual son" argument on that one, but I don't see how you can do that honestly. Wierwille is making no spiritual statement in this paragraph, and his uses of terms "father," "son" and "grandfather" are all five-senses in nature. It looks like you'd have to bend over backwards, to use your language, to fail to recognize this as an error. Ah, but I am still willing to give it more time and research. Thanks, Mr. Hammeroni. I think this is a good one.

I agree, God has the solution. You, sir, are far from it. But go ahead. Master it all. Have fun.

I apologize for posting off topic messages on this thread. I do believe my posts are related to your topic, but only indirectly (namely: your thread is an extension of your thesis, which I believe to be flawed. My posts have basically focused on the flaws in your thesis, not the direct thread topic). So I won't interfere anymore except to respond to your last post: "2+2=5" is always an error, cut and dried. I will concede that more of my "Actual Errors" list will be resolved. But not all of it. That's where you and I disagree. I have several examples of which I am extremely confident (and unlike you, I will not resort to "God told me I'm right about this" in order to bolster my argument). That's another topic for another thread. I believe your handling of "apparent errors," if carried out honestly, will lead you to the conclusion that Wierwille made mistakes in the writing of his books, mistakes that disqualify those books from the very definition of "God-breathed" contained therein. Take all the time you want, but don't dodge. Don't distract. Don't evade. And when you finally conclude the error is an error, just admit it. It will open a world to you about which you know very little right now. I can see the value of Wierwille's books without adopting your thesis. You cannot see the value of abandoning your thesis until you do so. Good luck.

oh shut up.

Ah, but if God was the author then there'd be no... oh forget it.

Zixar, Cynic: your discussion is fascinating. I assure you that if I had tried to list this as an actual error, I would have provoked a similar argument. I think its best that these discussions take place before the error is listed, rather than after. I appreciate the time you both put into it. Excath: this is not "seriously a doctrinal thread." It is, however, serious. The point of the thread is to point to objective errors in PFAL: errors upon which all reasonable people can agree. The fact that "thoroughly" and "throughly" are synonyms is an objective fact. It's not the result of a different interpretation of some archaic word. Wierwille was simply wrong to say that there's a difference between the two words. Remember, ex, that Wierwille wrote "if any other word had been used" other than "pros" in John 1:1, the whole Bible would crumble. That means he set a VERY low standard for what would disqualify a document as "The Word of God." Wierwille's works contain many such examples, and this thread is a way of identifying some of them. Contrary to what some people may think, we actually spend a good deal of time trying to figure out how to keep items OFF the list, resulting in some items staying off the list even though we are reasonably certain that they are errors. But we're not looking for reasonable certainty. We're looking for "2+2=5," errors that we're absolutely certain are errors. Being human, sometimes we will be mistaken. I doubt, highly, that we were mistaken 33 times. I have little doubt that more of the errors we've listed will be resolved. But there's just no way ALL of them will be. And as long as ONE ERROR remains, then PFAL is not the Word of God. If it's worth your time, stick around and help us out. You're certainly welcome to. But I'd understand if you have other things on your plate. :)--> Mr. Hammeroni: you got in hte groove right away. Welcome. I think the full context of Wierwille's statement is necessary: Now, once again, let's attempt to give Wierwille every benefit of the doubt: Continuing to read the section, we see that Wierwille does indeed change the subject from the offspring of Seth to begin discussing the children of Israel. At first I thought this was an error, as there were no "children of Israel" at the time of Genesis 6, the verses Wierwille had just cited. But no, he changed the subject. On to Hammeroni's statement: Cain's progeny was wiped out in the flood. The children of Israel, a post-flood people, could not possibly have married Cain's progeny. Could Wierwille have been using the term "Cain's progeny" figuratively, to mean unbelievers? Could anyone counter that argument? I leave it up to you. Next: You really don't want this to be easy, do you? Okay, Ahab, Ahab, Ahab. Ah, here it is: Yes, Ahab was the son of Omri and the husband of Jezebel. Now, Jeroboam preceded both, but I don't see that Ahab was of Jeroboam's line. If he was, then the term "Jeroboam's son" is a shortcut, the way Jesus is the Son of David. Further research is necessary.

I'm trying to be a pain in the butt, remember: When Wierwille writes, "A relative pronoun referst to the nearest noun as its antecedent," he is talking about how to read the Word of God. It matters not that Zixar can construct a sentence that defies this principle. It only matters that God does not. Therefore, to establish the error, we must find examples of Wierwille contradicting the principle in plain English, or the Bible contradicting it in its original language.

How about running the sentence past your dad: "A relative pronoun refers to the nearest noun as its antecedent." True or false? I'm no expert in grammar, but I'd be interested in the opinion of a grammar expert.

Not so. "Whomsoever I send" qualifies as a clause. That being the case, "whomsoever" is not a freestanding "relative pronoun." The pronoun is now "whomsoever I send," which defines itself. It may no longer be a relative pronoun, and thus not subject to Wierwille's definition. Further, if it is correct in Greek, but incorrect in English, we can't very well hold Wierwille accountable for a translator's error. The counterargument is too simple: the Word of God got it right, the translator got it wrong. That's why a case of Wierwille himself making the error would be so much more useful. No room for a translator's error.

I'm not sure. The relative pronoun in that case is part of a clause, "whomsoever I send." I'm not sure. I DO mean to a be a pain in the butt, but only to verify that this is an actual error.

A MAn After God's Own Heart: It's my belief that the verse in Acts 13 refers to David at the time of his selection as King, and not a summary of his whole life. It is my belief that at no time after the Bathsheba/Uriah incident is David ever referred to as a man after God's own heart, and that the Acts record does not contradict this belief. Nonetheless, in the interest of intellectual honesty, I am striking the error because one could conceivably argue that when Wierwille wrote "Then it says in the Word of God," he was thinking of Acts 13. That position cannot be disproven. Relative Pronouns Thanks for the input. Like I wrote last night, I did a little bit of reading into what a relative pronoun is. I'm hesitant to include this as an actual error until we shore it up a little. Zix, while you posit a reasonable disproof, I would be more inclined to accept an actual sentence from the Bible (with the original languages consulted) or from Wierwille's written works themselves. Any quote in which Wierwille employs a relative pronoun that does not refer back to the nearest noun as its antecedent would establish the error, best as I can see.

The statement about the "nearest antecedent noun" in Wierwille's books does not need to be made in reference to any particular verse in order for the error to be an actual error. The statement itself is the error, regardless of what verse/interpretation it is used to support. You must have an earlier edition of RTHST. In my book, the reference is on p. 143. "A relative pronoun refers to the nearest noun as its antecedent." I don't know what a "relative pronoun" is. What does a "relative pronoun" relate to? Is there a difference between a "relative" pronoun and a plain old ordinary pronoun? I have no idea. This is the kind of term that gives Wierwillites the wiggle room to claim these errors are not errors at all. I'm doing a little reading on it right now, not enough to lead me to any solid conclusion. It seems that Wierwille is claiming that the word "one" is a relative pronoun. It's not. A relative pronoun would be a word like "who, whom, whomever, which, whichever, etc." However, I do not know if the word "one" is a relative pronoun in Greek. The research continues. And with that, good night.

Regarding David: I know it's hard to let this one go, but the fact is, we have to stick with what is actually written: The incident with Bathsheba/Uriah is recorded, then it says in the word of God that David was a man after God's own heart. Taking a very loose meaning of "then," we will find that expression, albeit ALL THE WAY OVER in Acts 13. You'll note that the verse in Acts 13 makes no reference to Uriah and Bathsheba. Therefore, granting VPW as much leeway as possible, the verse in Acts 13 is a reference to the whole quality of David's life, both before and after the incident. Wierwille never claims that the reference to David as "a man after God's own heart" is not used before the Bathsheba incident. He only claims that it IS used AFTER that incident. And it is. I'm amused, however, that the resolution of this error was achieved by reading the Bible, not by "mastering" PFAL. But that particular statement in PFAL does not prove the book ain't God-breathed. I remain confident that out of the remaining 32 errors we've identified, the majority are actual errors. If PFAL is God-breathed, not one error will stand. Yeh right. As for the eternal life debate: I think you just made it abundantly clear that it is interpretational.

This error is being removed from this list because David is called "a man after God's own heart" in Acts 13:22, long after the events recorded in II Samuel. Although an argument can be made that it is still referring to a time before the Bathsheba/Uriah incident, the fact remains that the Bible calls David "a man after God's own heart" after the events of II Samuel, effectively refuting this error. This error will eventually be removed from this list, after I believe those who are interested in the list have had ample opportunity to review the material.

ANNOUNCEMENT!!!!! I'm REMOVING error number 1 from the list!!!!

Okay, so we need to do a couple of things here to establish this as an actual error (and I believe at this point that it is): First, we need the exact quote from Wierwille. It should be in Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, the chapter on I Corinthians 12. If it's not there, we can try the chapter on John 1 in Jesus Christ is Not God (or the appendix on antanaclasis). Point is, if you can find the quote, you can't claim the error. Second, we need to determine that the statement is as absolute as we're discussing. If Wierwille leaves any other possible interpretation of his words, that other possible interpretation MUST be considered. In other words, if his statement is conditional, or if it is written in a way that the principle applies in some cases but not in others, then it's not an actual error. It's a statement that is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Finally, we need examples from the Bible and from PFAL itself that directly contradict the statement. That should be real, real easy.

The principle that a pronoun referst to the nearest antecedent noun is worth investigating. I've never given it too much thought, but I'll bet good money that you're right: it's an actual error.

Welcome to the thread, Ferbie. You should come by more often. If you have the time, go through the previous pages (yikes) and/or through The Official Actual Errors List for an explanation of how I hoped this thread would work. I believe you will agree with me that the errors you've outlined are "interpretational," which is to say they are subject to long and tedious arguments after which two reasonable people may still disagree. Is Wierwille wrong about those things? Maybe. Can a good, honest argument be made that he is right? I think so. Do you? But I do appreciate the contribution. Does anyone disagree with me on this?