Raf

I KNEW you would ask!!!! Wierwille writes that MOST Jews (51%) are PREDOMINANTLY Khazar (51%). So I calculate that just over half of half the population has to be of Khazar descent. 0.51 x 0.51 = 0.2601, or 26%. Giving Wierwille every benefit of the doubt, that's the number I came up with. Actually, if I were to be REAL generous, I would drop it to 25% (since 50% + 1 would still, statistically, round off to 50%). But the point is, I found a way for only a quarter of Jews to meet Wierwille's definition and still not count this as an actual error. Wierwille's history lesson does not meet that threshold. It's anti-Semitic drivel. By the way, I used to believe this crap and teach it, so I want to apologize for ever passing it along as truth. The Living Epistles Society [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 31, 2003 at 12:58.]

Some New York Times abstracts... In DNA, New Clues to Jewish Roots By NICHOLAS WADE (NYT) 1581 words Late Edition - Final , Section F , Page 1 , Column 1 ABSTRACT - New study of DNA data conducted by Drs David Goldstein, Mark Thomas and Neil Bradman of University College in London shows that women in nine Jewish communities from Georgia, former Soviet republic, to Morocco have vastly different genetic histories than men; earlier study led by Dr Michael Hammer of University of Arizona showed that Jewish men from seven communities were related to one another and to present-day Palestinian and Syrian populations, but not to men of their host communities; finding suggests that most Jewish communities were formed by unions between Jewish men and local women; map (M) A new thread is being woven into the complex tapestry of Jewish history, a thread fashioned from a double twist of DNA. The DNA data suggest a particular version of Jewish history and origins that historians have not yet had time to appraise but that seem to be reconcilable in principle with the historical record, according to experts in Jewish studies. -------- Y Chromosome Bears Witness to Story of the Jewish Diaspora By NICHOLAS WADE With a new technique based on the male or Y chromosome, biologists have traced the diaspora of Jewish populations from the dispersals that began in 586 B.C. to the modern communities of Europe and the Middle East. The analysis provides genetic witness that these communities have, to a remarkable extent, retained their biological identity separate from their host populations, evidence of relatively little intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries. Another finding, paradoxical but unsurprising, is that by the yardstick of the Y chromosome, the world's Jewish communities closely resemble not only each other but also Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese, suggesting that all are descended from a common ancestral population that inhabited the Middle East some four thousand years ago. Dr. Lawrence H. Schiffman, chairman of the department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University, said the study fit with historical evidence that Jews originated in the Near East and with biblical evidence suggesting that there were a variety of families and types in the original population. He said the finding would cause ''a lot of discussion of the relationship of scientific evidence to the manner in which we evaluate long-held academic and personal religious positions,'' like the question of who is a Jew. The study, reported in today's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was conducted by Dr. Michael F. Hammer of the University of Arizona with colleagues in the United States, Italy, Israel, England and South Africa. The results accord with Jewish history and tradition and refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism. The analysis by Dr. Hammer and colleagues is based on the Y chromosome, which is passed unchanged from father to son. Early in human evolution, all but one of the Y chromosomes were lost as their owners had no children or only daughters, so that all Y chromosomes today are descended from that of a single genetic Adam who is estimated to have lived about 140,000 years ago. In principle, all men should therefore carry the identical sequence of DNA letters on their Y chromosomes, but in fact occasional misspellings have occurred, and because each misspelling is then repeated in subsequent generations, the branching lineages of errors form a family tree rooted in the original Adam. These variant spellings are in DNA that is not involved in the genes and therefore has no effect on the body. But the type and abundance of the lineages in each population serve as genetic signature by which to compare different populations. Based on these variations, Dr. Hammer identified 19 variations in the Y chromosome family tree. The ancestral Middle East population from which both Arabs and Jews are descended was a mixture of men from eight of these lineages. Among major contributors to the ancestral Arab-Jewish population were men who carried what Dr. Hammer calls the ''Med'' lineage. This Y chromosome is found all round the Mediterranean and in Europe and may have been spread by the Neolithic inventors of agriculture or perhaps by the voyages of sea-going people like the Phoenicians. Another lineage common in the ancestral Arab-Jewish gene pool is found among today's Ethiopians and may have reached the Middle East by men who traveled down the Nile. But present-day Ethiopian Jews lack some of the other lineages found in Jewish communities, and overall are more like non-Jewish Ethiopians than other Jewish populations, at least in terms of their Y chromosome lineage pattern. The ancestral pattern of lineages is recognizable in today's Arab and Jewish populations, but is distinct from that of European populations and both groups differ widely from sub-Saharan Africans. Each Arab and Jewish community has its own flavor of the ancestral pattern, reflecting their different genetic histories. Roman Jews have a pattern quite similar to that of Ashkenazis, the Jewish community of Eastern Europe. Dr. Hammer said the finding accorded with the hypothesis that Roman Jews were the ancestors of the Ashkenazis. Despite the Ashkenazi Jews' long residence in Europe, their Y signature has remained distinct from that of non-Jewish Europeans. On the assumption that there have been 80 generations since the founding of the Ashkenazi population, Dr. Hammer and colleagues calculate that the rate of genetic admixture with Europeans has been less than half a percent per generation. Jewish law tracing back almost 2,000 years states that Jewish affiliation is determined by maternal ancestry, so the Y chromosome study addresses the question of how much non-Jewish men may have contributed to Jewish genetic diversity. Dr. Hammer was surprised to find how little that contribution was. ''It could be that wherever Jews were, they were very much isolated,'' he said. The close genetic affinity between Jews and Arabs, at least by the Y chromosome yardstick, is reflected in the Genesis account of how Abraham fathered Ishmael by his wife's maid Hagar and, when Sarah was then able to conceive, Isaac. Although Muslims have a different version of the story, they regard Abraham and Ishmael, or Ismail, as patriarchs just as Jews do Abraham and Isaac. LInk to the original article. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 31, 2003 at 12:49.]

I'll have to cite the DNA sources, lest I be just as guilty as Wierwille in relying on "an old piece of literature. But one thing's for certain: Koestler said they formed the cradle of Western Jewry. Wierwille said MOST modern Jews are PREDOMINANTLY of Khazar descent. In order for Wierwille to be right, at LEAST 26% of Jews would have to be of Khazar descent. The fact is, the vast majority of Jews, western or eastern, share genetic characteristics suggesting a common origin. They're the same stock. That's my claim. It's not proof. I'm convinced of its truth and when I have time, I'll put up. For now, I'll shut up. For a head start (while you're waiting for me to "put up,") check out the customer reviews of The Thirteenth Tribe on Amazon.com.

Just a spelling error on my part. "Apeitheia" means disobedience, but is translated "unbelief" in the KJV. "apatheia" is not in the Bible.

Def, Both those observations, I think, fall under "error of interpretation" (assuming you're correct). Details of the the first one are on my list. (Errors 2 and 3). I actually disagree with you, 100%, that Jesus felt separated from God because he was carrying the sins of the world. The Bible does not teach that. You're speculating. A more obvious reason Jesus would cry out the first verse of Psalm 22 is... He wanted to call everyone's attention to Psalm 22! It's a messianic Psalm. With his dying words, Jesus is still announcing to the world that he is the Messiah. Speculation? Maybe. But frankly, it makes more sense than your speculation. After all, considering your insistence that Jesus IS God, I do not see how you can suggest that he felt separated FROM God, no matter how much sin he was carrying. That leads to your second observation, which you know full well is a doctrinal difference and beyond the scope of what we've tried to point out here in this thread. I have no interest in debating the Trinity. There's whole other threads for that, of which you are well aware. However, if you want to refute specific statements Wierwille makes in Jesus Christ is not God, statements that are simply and factually false, that would be fair game. If Wierwille plagiarized (and he most certainly did), then the content of his publications is still worthy of examination according to hte Biblical admonition to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. I question Wierwille's integrity as a researcher, author and preacher, because he plagiarized. But questioning the CONTENT of what he taught is a separate issue. If I plagiarized your favorite novel, you would still love the novel, even though you'd criticize me for claiming it as my own. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 31, 2003 at 10:39.]

This post is longer than intended, but so what. OLDIES: I don't know hot to set it up in columns. I'm not really that good on the Web, and I just used MS Word to create that document. As I learn more, I'll change the format. You're right about specific, page by page citations. With regard to error #9 (the gospels are addressed to us)... Wierwille's specific statement is, "To whom are the gospels addressed? To a period before or after Pentecost?" Well, since they were ALL written after Pentecost, then we know the answer to that question. They are addressed to a period after Pentecost. If they were addressed to a period BEFORE Pentecost, then it was a big waste waiting until AFTER Pentecost to write them. What Wierwille WANTED to say was, "ABOUT whom are the gospels written?" They were written ABOUT a period before Pentecost. Now, by HIS VERY OWN STANDARD, one preposition out of place diqualifies a document as "THE Word of God." Well, I found a preposition out of place. The introduction to Luke should make it absolutely clear that, at the very least, THAT gospel was written TO believers. I don't want to get into a dispensational debate: it's not my forte. But if you ARE a dispensationalist, there's no problem with this observation. You can put your mind at ease by recognizing that the gospels are ABOUT a time before Pentecost. Everything falls back into the dispensational framework after that. But I do encourage you to dig deeper into the so-called contradictions between the gospels and the epistles. It could be quite the education, and will enhance your appreciation of the Lord's key dissertation: the Sermon on the Mount. As or the "Jew and Judean" discussion, I've actually read enough to consider this an actual error. I read an old piece of literature that... OW! Sorry. Wierwille misrepresented Koestler, who himself was wrong about key findings. So Wierwille only compounded the error. The Khazars did convert to Judaism, but most Jews are not of Khazar background. Wierwille says that the majority of modern Jews are predominantly descendants of the Khazars. That statement is simply false. I should also say that you, Oldies, misinterpreted what I said about Koestler. Compare your critique to what I wrote and I think you’ll see what I mean. WORDWOLF: Wierwille specifically writes that there’s no record of angels singing in Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed. I don’t think he ever wrote that angels “don’t sing” or “can’t sing.” That’s a Way overreaction. STEVE LORTZ: I have tremendous respect for the observations you’ve made, and I think you’ve presented very strong cases. But I also think you will agree that they are doctrinal errors. The “actual errors” we’re compiling are mostly appetizers. The errors you’re presenting are the main course: once we establish that Wierwille can be mistaken about “all without distinction,” we can say, well, what other mistakes did he make? And that’s where your observations come in. But please, keep your clothes on. :)-->

You guys are so cool. I still need to hear from all of you on the issue of how to give you credit for your contributions. Names? Handles? Both? Let me know (privately, if you don't mind). TW: Thanks. "The" faith. That helps. I have no doubt that it's an actual error. I just couldn't figure out how to express it. Steve: Is it just me, or did you make a rock-solid case for the analysis of II Timothy 3:16 as an error of interpretation? Let me be clear that I totally agree with you, it's an error. The only quibble is what kind? Thoughts, anyone? Jerry: Laleo is a good one. Yes, it needs to be added. As for heteros and allos: I need examples that show exactly how and why the definitions provided were wrong. I remember you did have them. Please post. Zix: You are correct. I felt confident with the apistia v. apatheia, but not faith v. believing. It will be some time before I actually post the additions. A couple of days. A week. I don't know. I will say that I had no intention of posting so much in the past month (something like 400 times, maybe more). I absolutely need to slow down. I'm detecting a yellow light that's sort of ready to go red at a moment's notice, knowhatImean, Vern? Hello, my name is Rafael, and I'm a greasespotaholic. Myyyy preciousssss. Oh.... Here's the list!!!

Okay, I'm done. I've got 27 that I'm comfortable with, I left out a bunch that I believe are errors, but I'm not sure they rise (or sink) to "actual error" status. At the very least, my argument for them doesn't do the trick for me. The omitted "errors" are: 1. Wierwille's definition of faith vs. believing. I just don't know how to phrase this one. 2. The image of God. I think we can establish that Wierwille falls FAR SHORT of proving his case that the image of God is spirit. But can we actually say it's been refuted? I can't. That doesn't mean Wierwille is right. It just means that the error is interpretational. 3. Figures of speech I still think I'm right about this one, but it's interpretational. 4. The profit in scripture. While Steve made an excellent case for Wierwille's error, there's still one possible explanation that would validate Wierwille's theory that it should be doctrine, reproof and correction, summed up by the term "instruction in righteousness." The explanation would be a figure of speech. Is there a figure of speech in which a list is provided, and the end of the list is the culmination of everything preceding? I don't have Bullinger's book, so I can't check. I'm sure some of you do. I'd love to hear an answer. I'll post my list overnight and put a link on this thread (I'll also ask Pawtucket to place it as an article on the main page). Raf

I've got 25 errors listed so far, and I'm only up to page 8, and not done with Jerry Barrax's posts. Nine pages long so far (includes a one-page background sheet). This is going to be a long night.

You're right. Are the Dead Alive Now counts. I've included the addition of the word "than," the changing of the word "abundantly," and the changing fo the order of the words. "I am come that they might have life...more abundantly" becomes "Jesus came that we might have life more than abundant." The rest of that page is filled with interpretational errors.

Mike, I need to know if you consider the PFAL Foundational Syllabus, expanded for Advanced Class participants, is God-breathed, or if only the Orange Book enjoys that status. ------ Zix, Depending on how Mike answers the above question, I may not include your observation in my list. It's appropriate for this thread, which is about the class, the books, whatever. But my list is going to stick with the written books. PFAL RTHST The Blue Book The Green Book The Word's Way God's Magnified Word Order My Steps in Thy Word Christians Should Be Prosperous Jesus Christ is Not God Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed Jesus Christ Our Passover I am not counting Living Victoriously, or Take God At His Word, or any of the other books that Chris Geer edited from old teaching tapes after Wierwille died.

Thanks oldies. That's precisely what I'm doing. It will be much longer than the CES page, though. CES' list is more interpretational in nature. Their mission is different. I'm not attempting to list disagreements. I'm attempting to list mistakes. But the answer to your question is, yes, I intend to post this on my web page.

Mike's preceding post must be seen in light of his stated method of handling errors in hisssss preciousssss PFAL. "Needs and wants" was not mentioned in this thread. That's a straw man, and it does nothing to address any of the actual errors we've presented. I don't appreciate your deliberate attempt to distract us from the purpose of this thread. Your attack on my motives is, likewise, summarily dismissed. I won't bow before your idol, sign your green card, or sail on your ship (a ship so full of holes that you might as well launch it on the ocean floor to save time). I will acknowledge your dissent by either removing an error from the list or by discussing why I disagree with your attempted explanation. But if you think I'm going to write "this error evaporates when you change your perspective and become a meek master," you're sadly mistaken.

Oldiesman: I don't think I understand your question (so my answer would have to be no, for the moment). The list I am compiling will be in the same format as my opening post, along with a "discussion" after each one reflecting the various debates we've had on this thread. Is that what you meant? I also need to note that one can still greatly value PFAL while still acknowledging that these errors are, in fact, errors.

Folks, I'm compiling a master list and would like to include acknowledgements. If you want your name or handle acknowledged as a contributor, please let me know. Jerry Barrax and Karl Kahler will be included unless they specifically instruct me not to. Everyone else, please write to me so I know whether to use your name, handle, or neither. Anyone who has contributed to the thread may write in, regardless of what YOU think of the value of your contribution. Raf

Riiiiight.... There's still, what, 17 or 18 cracks in that precioussssss foundation? According to Wierwille, the existence of any ONE of those cracks sends your whole set of books crumbling to pieces. Oh, but that's right, you've learned how to make those cracks evaporate.

Jerry, you posted off topic, and that's rude. ;)--> Pawtucket: PLEASE TAKE THIS POST AND PUT IT ON THE MAIN GREASESPOT PAGE! THIS!!!!! is why we missed you so much Jerry.

Here's another one that was overlooked. I didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle... ... Jerry posted at about the same time I did, and I did not want people to miss his post, so I'm copying it...

Ex10: Please do. rafael@livingepistlessociety.org Steve: I'm not ignoring your post. I'm just overwhelmed by it. I'm not sure it's a derailment, but at the very least it is a fascinating discussion. Rafael

Dot, thank you so much for sharing that. I believe you. What hurts me is the knowledge that people will look at your story and casually dismiss it because it disagrees with their hero worship. For what it's worth, I believe you. Al, Sorry I got defensive. Raf

Whoah, Al, first of all, calm down. Did you miss the MULTIPLE times I said that a willing participant does not excuse the reprehensible behavior of VPW or LCM? Would you like me to point out the mutliple times I said that... and the time I came back and made sure I said it AGAIN on ANOTHER POST just to make sure the point was not lost? Before you accuse anyone of stubbornly swimming around in the swamp, make sure we are at least arguably guilty of committing the offense. In this case, we are provably innocent. I agree with you: it does not excuse LCM's behavior. It does not excuse Vic's behavior. Okay? Okay?

Excath: Thank you for replying to my post so promptly, and for sharing your heart with us so that we know these things really happened to real people. Oldies: No sweat. I remember we clashed quite famously, and I really respected the way you handled yourself throughout. Now, if only I could get you to understand where I'm coming from on the subject of giving... Oh well. One thing at a time. The Living Epistles Society

I didn't think you were requesting or expecting a response. There were too many people, too many, who were abused at the hands of two men (and their minions) who refused to heed the Bible's clear instructions on sex. They hurt God's people in God's name, twisting the scriptures to satisfy their lusts. They abused the trust of God's people, then spread vicious and hateful lies about those women when the women tried to reconcile the MOGs' behavior with the God they were told is all love. I have no sympathy for what they did, and hold them responsible for their behavior (as I hold myself responsible for my own). With that said, there were SOME (1? 3? 9? I don't know) women for whom the encounters were consensual. They didn't speak up because they aren't "victims." The existence of these women does not invalidate the existence of real victims, nor does it excuse the reprehensible and ungodly behavior of the MOGs. Does that count as a reply? I really meant no disrespect. Raf

Oh, and by the way: the fact that I believe such women did exist does not in any way invalidate the contemptible abuse of authority exhibited by VPW, LCM or anyone else in a position of leadership. What they did to God's people in God's name is utterly reprehensible and should be exposed for the same reason that Solomon's ridiculousness needs to be exposed. We cannot allow it to be repeated.

Thanks Zix. So at the very least there was ONE person who fit the description with LCM. It doesn't excuse LCM, but it makes it harder for that one person to claim victim status. Now, is it so hard to believe that out of the God knows how many women who slept with Wierwille, MAYBE, just MAYBE, a handful also fit that description, even with Wierwille? Not a majority. Not even a lot. Just SOME. And it still doesn't excuse Wierwille, but it robs those very few possible people of "victim" status. Is that so unreasonable? I appreciate that Zix dug up that page from Karl's site. And I appreciate that I've built the kind of record on these boards where people will know that I am no apologist for Wierwille. I have found that Oldiesman is honest about his positions and will listen to reason when it comes to those who challenge him. I question some of his positions and opinions. I do not question his motive or heart.