Raf

Actually, on further reflection, I think it's synecdoche and not metonymy. I could be wrong on either point, but the essence of what I'm saying is that the part (eternal life) is being put for the whole (new birth spirit). By the way, WordWolf, what's going on? You're posting in the daytime! :)--> Throwing off my clock is what you're doing.

Agreed. What else would lead someone to refer to a teaching that was published and disseminated TWICE as being "Lost?"

I've finally had a chance to look at this "eternal life" discussion you guys have been having (above). I clearly see what Jerry is saying. I do not clearly see what Zixar and WordWolf are saying. Wierwille wrote that those who lived before Pentecost did not have the "new birth" spirit and therefore did not have "eternal life." The error is in equating those two terms. One could have eternal life prior to Pentecost. Jerry's scriptural quotes establish that. Further, there is no substantive difference between the fact that eternal life was promised but not manifested then, and promised but not manifested today. The only thing I'll ask Jerry to address is this: can Wierwillites claim that VPW's use of "without eternal life" was an example of metonymy - with eternal life being put for "the new birth spirit," emphasizing that the eternal life we have is a rock solid and unretractable promise as opposed to a conditional promise? (The promise on the cross would be the exception only because of the circumstances: Jesus knew the robber was not going anywhere). If that is the case, the error goes from actual to interpretational.

No one. It's called common courtesy. You can take FOREVER to answer the questions. I have ALWAYS said so, and never chided you for your delays (I have chided you for posting long, extensive, posts while simultaneously claiming to have no time to address the questions, but that's different). You can decide never to answer them. You can answer them all tomorrow. But what you can't do, at least not honestly, is challenge my integrity and use that LAME challenge as a substitute for answering the questions. YOU're the one promoting a counterfeit "Word of God." The burden is on you to answer questions about it.

The error list is now at 33. It might be higher if I had more time, but I don't. I did finally add the JCING errors cited above, and the Judas Iscariot contradiction. I also added a brief summary of the discussion in which Mike attempted to explain error #1. Actual Errors in PFAL.

Changing the subject (without comment): Jerry, You've made repeated references to an error in which Wierwille states "isn't that a wonderful verse of scripture..." or something close to it after he goes over the whole Bathsheba affair. You've cited this as an error because Wierwille doesn't actually cite a single scripture in the preceding paragraphs. I think I've resolved this error, however, and would like to ask you to reconsider your position: When Wierwille writes "Isn't that a wonderful verse of scripture," he is not referring to any verses in II Samuel. He is referring to II Timothy 3:16. What do you think? (You need the book in front of you to sort this one out).

Logical Fallacy: AD HOMINEM: Attack the messenger rather than the message. Namely, Mike is unable to answer the list of actual errors in PFAL, despite a pretty danged good attempt at addressing ONE of them (our list is at over 30 at last count), so instead of addressing the deficiency in his own position, he attacks the "quality of heart" of his detractors, accusing us of being dishonest researchers promoting "bad data." This, of course, absolves him of the responsibility of answering honest questions. Nice. Very nice.

First person to make a KISS joke gets a rap in the knuckles. That said, Welcome to Greasespot, Paul!

Friends, Smikeol does not believe that TWI stood faithful to the word of VPW. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for him to try to promote his views on an EX-Way site, since The Way has already rejected Smikeol's preciousssss. Basically speaking, this is an open forum. If someone wants to try to talk us back into TWI, present, past, or future, they're entitled to do so. Challenge the logic of his argument, but in my opinion, it's wrong to challenge his decision to bring his argument to an audience he thinks might contain even one receptive Igor. Just my opinion.

Actually, while you are correct about the object of Wierwille's lesson, you fail once again to see the error in what he wrote. Wierwille wrote that "thoroughly" is external, whereas "throughly" implies an inside job. He did NOT merely say it was a matter of reading what's written. He actually said there was a substantive difference between the two words. And he was wrong.

Agreed. That's the ESSENCE. I agree wholeheartedly. I have no trouble whatsoever seeing that. Amazing to me that, even after it was specifically pointed out to you, you continue to use this straw man argument. Listen: NO ONE IS MAKING THAT ARGUMENT. I'm not making it. Im not claiming Wierwille made it. You're debunking an argument no one is making. And that's where you're wrong, and where DocVic (praise be his name) is wrong. He wrote "Then it says in the word of God..." That's chronological, no matter how much you cover your ears and deny it. Irrelevant. The fact that no one looked for it is irrelevant. The fact that it was a minor, insignificant error that means nothing in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant - unless you're of the absurd position that there are no such errors in PFAL. THAT's our contention. I say it's a little error that doesn't matter. You insist that it's not an error at all. Dude, it's chronological. It takes a predetermined bias to distract, dodge and never admit an error is an error in order to fail to see that this was a mistake. Because it doesn't matter - unless you insist it's not an error. Really, your dodging of this simple truth is comical. I think it's important to note what Wierwille meant when he said "The Word of God," particularly in the passage in question. Wierwille writes, "There are many examples of correction in THE BIBLE." This is the sentence he uses to introduce this segment. Therefore, according to the principles of context taught by Wierwille, he was talking about "The Bible," not some amorphous undefinable concept of "the Word of God," but the Bible itself. The entire section is nestled into a discussion of the value of scripture. To take this section and state, unequivocally, that "the Word of God" as used by Wierwille on p. 88 is NOT referring to the Bible is fundamentally dishonest. Bottom line: "Then it says in the Word of God..." is most certainly a chronological expression asserting that a particular phrase will be found IN THE BIBLE, AFTER the incident in question. And Wierwille was mistaken. A tiny mistake. An insignificant mistake considering the larger point being made. But a mistake nonetheless. Can you admit that, or do you have more dodging, distracting, and refusal to admit the error is an error up your sleeve?

Actually, it doesn't. remove the word "only" and we have the following: Error 1, 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." And the error stands, for the Bible never says of David that he was a man after God's own heart after the Bathsheba adultery and the Uriah murder. And according to Wierwille, "the Bible" and "the Word of God" are synonymous. I'll say it again: After the Bathsheba/Uriah incident, the word of God NEVER SAYS that David was a man after God's own heart. That statement is only made long before that incident. The HEART of what Wierwille said was true (which I've never denied), but by introducing the time element of "then," he made a teeny tiny little (but actual) error which still stands. You really have to bend over backwards to take a time element out of the word "then." How does Dr. Wierwille treat the word "then?" I'll give you a hint: it's on p. 159 of PFAL. "Then [after all that] were two thieves crucified with him..." Using the Word of Wierwille as the determining authority of the meaning of "then," we see that there is a time element involved, one which you go through great pains to ignore. I agree with Wierwille: David was a man after God's own heart following the Bathsheba adultery/Uriah murder. The problem is that the Word of God does not say that, and Wierwille says it does. It was a teeny tiny mistake - totally inconsequential save for your idolatrous insistence that the orange book has no such errors. Why can't you just admit that? Tell your old friend that he's just as wrong about this as you. He has zero authority in determining the actuality of this error. Simple truth is, he missed the point (not surprising, considering how you misrepresented our position). It's an error because of the time element Wierwille introduced by using the word "then." It remains an error because that statement is incorrect. The Bible does use that phrase, but only long before the incident involved, never after. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on March 27, 2003 at 8:09.] I figured I'd add a couple of smaller points: This is neither what is said or meant by pointing out Wierwille's error. No one (Wierwille included) is suggesting that David only became a man after God's own heart after this incident and never before this incident. What you have done, Mike, is misrepresent our position in order to debunk it, a disingenuous method of argument known as "using a straw man." Let's get the error precisely stated: Wierwille writes: "THEN IT SAYS IN THE WORD OF GOD." The word "THEN" means a time element is involved. "THEN IT SAYS..." But, as we continue to say, the Word of God does NOT say that. It is a reasonable conclusion to draw, but the error is in the statement "THEN IT SAYS..." when, in fact, it does NOT say that. Continuing... Once again, you're employing a straw man argument. The error we are pointing out is that Wierwille wrote "then it says..." when in fact, the opposite is true. It is said before this incident. It is never said afterward. Your use of the term "never began until period #3" is not ours. Wierwille never made any mention of the period BEFORE the Bathsheba incident. You are reading that into our criticism when, in truth, it is simply not there. Your use of quotes in that regard is deceptive, as you are not quoting anything stated by any of us. Agreed. Context is key. Wierwille CLEARLY meant the Bible when he used the phrase "then it says in the Word of God." Your suggestion that he might have meant something else on the relevant page of PFAL is nonsensical and rips the account from its context. The problem you fail to address is that it does not only say "then," but rather, "then it says..." which it does not. Contrary to your statement above, Wierwille is specifically discussing when the good condition was written (or rather, recorded) in the Bible. Now, if Wierwille had placed a comma after the word "then," you might have an argument. But he didn't. So the error stands. I've addressed this already. The word "only" can be eliminated without affecting the actuality of this error. As stated earlier, the context is key, and it is enormously clear from the context of the PFAL book that "the Word of God" in this particular usage meant the Bible. "Then it says..." But where? Where? Nowhere. You have to bend over backwards to fail to see that the sentence "then it says in the Word of God..." is a teeny tiny but actual error. I implore you to recognize this simple truth and abandon the absurd notion that this book contains no such errors. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on March 27, 2003 at 15:34.]

imablvr: Ok, I'll agree regarding the Sound of Music and it's strong story (although I must confess, I fail to see what's the big deal about this musical. I'm a big fan of musicals, and everyone treats this like it's the holy grail of musicals when, to me, it's okay at best. Then again, maybe I'm just having a bad reaction to "Eidelweiss," quite possibly the worst song in musical theater history that was not in "Carrie"). Cabaret did have a story. But in my opinion, so did Chicago, which is part of what I tried to point out. Oh goodie, I get to share my Phantom of the Opera story. First off, the musical never fails to give me a pounding headache. Something about Prima Donna. I got into an "argument" once with the theater critic of the New York Daily News (Howard Kissell), because he thought Phantom was a better musical than Les Miserables (don't you say nothin bad about my Les Miz). So I disagreed with him and, to make a long story short, he replied:

I thought Chicago was a wonderful movie. I don't agree that the story was weak: the story in a musical is usually exaggerated and pronounced precisely because it's not a straight drama. For example, can we honestly believe that Tony and Maria in West Side Story would be able to develop such a powerful bond between them after an initial meeting that lasted less than two minutes? That Tony would be willing to die for her within 24 hours? That Tony would run through a Spanish neighborhood calling out the name "Maria!" and only one girl would answer? Of course not. Why does Marian the Librarian fall for the Music Man? How stupid is Christine, not realizing that the "Angel of Music" is a deranged homicidal composer living underneath the Paris Opera House? Oh, and Seymour: don't feed the plant. Geesh. So, back to Chicago. The movie is not about a murder and defense strategy. It's about sensationalism, fame and fortune. It's about notoreity and cynicism. It's about unscrupulous lawyers and opportunistic murderesses. It's about alibis, reasons and excuses. It's about the invisibility of normal, decent people in a world dominated by the sensational, the famous, the notorious and the cynical. Yeah, the story was weak, until you start to look at it. Then you look closer and you realize maybe it has a lot to say after all. Rene Zellwegger wasn't supposed to be glamorous. That's the point. If not for her notoriety, she never would have become famous. Catherine Zetahhhhhhhh Jones was awesome and deserved that award. Queen Latifah - "just a big black woman?" I submit you missed the movie. Her performance, singing, acting, her very presence: sublime. The only reason I could see for denying her a nomination is that she simply made her part look to easy. Richard Gere did fine. But I really got a kick out of John Riley (the husband), who so perfectly captured the concept of being "Mr. Cellophane" that he threatened to make his song redundant. So a good cast, a good story, great singing and choreography, fantastic editing, and other crucial filmmaking qualities worked together to bring a little over two terrific hours of film. Now, I didn't see Gangs of New York, but bravo to a sterling effort, from all I've heard. I didn't see The Hours, but frankly, nothing I've heard about it makes me want to see it (Nicole Kidman's acting was so great! She was so ugly I didn't even know it was her! No thanks. I'll pass). I will see the Pianist when I get a chance. I promise. And Lord of the Rings, well, God Bless Peter Jackson, but it did not belong on the list this year. Sorry. It just din't.

I watched that. Moore got roundly booed because he made it personal against Bush and said nothing relevant. Adrien Brody, on the other hand, got a standing O because his words were eloquent and hopeful. Sometimes it's just in the delivery.

Peter Pan's gots kids?

Some useful info, from a variety of sources... Slate.com I would htink that one cymbal crash is a little extreme. But that's music, and irrelevant to this discussion. Plagiarism means the existence of similarities that are "beyond probability or coincidence.? I lost the source of that quote. From Plagiarism.org Feel free to peruse the following Web site as well: Defining Plagiarism Now, Oldiesman, if you refute the above definitions of plagiarism, that's fine. But do so. If you do NOT refute the above definitions of plagiarism, will you now acknowledge that Wierwille plagiarized Stiles at the beginning of chapter one of "his" book?

Oldiesman, I respectfully disagree with you. It is the existence of similarities that prove plagiarism. It is not the existence of differences that disprove it. The similarities are there and they are overwhelming. Try this exercise: take the two books to an academic you respect. Ask them to read the first two pages of each book and to offer their impressions. Don't tell them why you're asking. Do you have ANY doubt as to what the academic will tell you? I don't.

When you start acting like an individual with an independent mind, I will start treating you like one. As long as you keep acting like a spoiled, namecalling, disrespectful obnoxious brat, I will continue treating you like one. Now go fetch a brain. There's a storm tonight.

Seaspray thinks it's acceptable to refer to me repeatedly as a Pharisee. So I've decided to call him by a name more reflective of his personality. Apparently, that's fair game.

This quote establishes that Paul claimed his gospel was by revelation. It says NOTHING of PFAL or how the class and book came to be. This verse makes it clear that Peter believed the Old Testament was God-breathed. It says nothing of PFAL or how the book and class came to be. This scripture is a reference to the God-breathed Word, not to PFAL. It says nothing of how that class or book came to be. PFAL is a useful class. It is not perfect. It is not the perfect work of a perfect God. It contains errors, great and small. It contains contradictions. It is possible to understand the Bible without PFAL. Many have done it before, many will do it again.

You've got a few items here worth responding to... 1. I think the statement that all scripture interprets itself IS an actual error: BUT that Wierwille leaves himself an out. He also says that there's another option, namely, that there is no interpretation possible. So, for those scriptures that do not interpret themselves, there is no interpretation possible. That would satisfy the quotes in revelation and several other verses. As for the issue of Orientalisms, I'm leaning toward Zixar's view. The figures of speech and Orientalisms are assumed in the writing of Scripture. WE need an outside source to understand certain "strange scriptures" (as one book called them. But the original readers did not. The fact that we CAN argue the point means that, even assuming you are absolutely right, it's not an "actual error" but an interpretational, hermeneutical, or some other type of error. (Once we head into that category, my argument loses much of its strength). 2. "The principles pointed out ... were present." Notice that Wierwille does NOT say that the principles he pointed out were stated or documented. I think I need to break out a subset of actual errors called "baseless speculations." Recall that on the list of actual errors, a couple of them say that in order to be discounted as an error, all the other errors would have to be refuted. This error certainly falls under that category. Maybe I'll reset some of the errors to reflect that category. 3. I don't recall Wierwille saying that eternal life was not available before Pentecost. Before you refute the statement, please quote it so that we all know what you're discussing.

Igor, Yes. Yes, it is. For PFAL is NOT "The Word of God." How do we know this? Because PFAL fails to meet its VERY OWN definition of what it means to be THE Word of God. Further, according to PFAL, it is a sin to CHANGE the Word of God. Substituting "Power For Abundant Living" instead of "The Bible" in the paragraph you quote CHANGES the word that's written. Changing the Word leaves you with (according to PFAL) Nothing. Men's Opinion. Exalting "nothing" and "men's opinion" to the status of "The Word of God" is idolatrous. Wierwille frequently taught that PFAL was a means of leading people to God's Word. He NEVER taught that PFAL was God's Word itself (LarryP's enjoyable posts notwithstanding). Mike can trot out a few isolated "verses" in which Wierwille seems to be claiming that his writings are the equivalent of scripture. But look at what Wierwille is really saying, for he does NOT elevate his own words to that level. **** One more thing: enough with the accusations of King James worship already. It's a straw man. No one, not one person on this message board, has claimed that the King James Bible perfectly communicates the Word of God. You are striking at an opponent that does not exist, and it's getting tiresome. PFAL Does NOT equal The Word of God and therefore does NOT equal The Bible (ie, the scriptres as originally given).

I submit that the "Word of God" here in p. 15 is the Bible, as clearly and repeatedly defined in p. 11. This is still p. 15, and still a clear reference to the Bible. That's all that is written on p. 63. p. 82. Clearly, the Word of God and the Bible are used interchangeably in each of the above quotes. The examples of this are repeated and conclusive. The Bible is the Word of God. The Bible does not say that David was a man after God's own heart at any time AFTER the incident with Bathsheba and Uriah. You propose an answer that is circular in its reasoning: "Wierwille's writing IS God's Word: therefore, when Wierwille said it, that settled it." That's circular and false, just like your entire thesis. But heaven forbid I should try to reason with someone who is so committed to his idolatry. Come back to God's Word, Mike. That's the only way to truly master PFAL.

Oldiesman, Do you think the similarities of RTHST, p. 3 and the Stiles book, p. 15 are plagiarism or coincidence? I think the similarities prove plagiarism. The first scriptural references in the Stiles book (starting on p. 15) are, in order: John 14:16-17 Galatians 3:2,14 Acts 8:14-19 Acts 8:36-38 Acts 19:1-6 Acts 2:38-39 Acts 1:4-5 Matthew 28:19-20 Ephesians 5:18 Acts 1:8 Galatians 4:19 John 14:16-17 The first scriptural references of RTHST, starting on p. 3, in order: John 14:17 Acts 1:8 Acts 8:14-19 Acts 19:1-6 Acts 2:38-39 (in a footnote). Acts 1:4-5 Matthew 28:19-20 Acts 2:39 (repeated) Ephesians 5:18 I Corinthians 14:5,13,37 John 16:13-15 I think it's clear that there's a digression in Chapter One, but that Wierwille is clearly making the same argument using the same verses in pretty much the same order. It's not exact, but it's eerily close. Also, consider the wording. Wierwille did NOT write a single one of the following sentences: The similarities to the first chapter of RTHST are uncanny, especially if you were to adjust for doctrinal differences. I'll bet good money earlier editions of RTHST were closer, but I don't have them handy. More later.