Raf

Thanks Hope!

Do you have a link for that article so we can check the source?

Steve,

I'll make it easy. The complete phrase is "What we require now is a feat of linguistic legerdemain and a degree of intrepidity."

One of the all time great sentences.

Mike,

I left out an option.

I basically said answer now or answer later, but don't give a half answer or long non-answer and expect us to be satisfied with it.

I will be completely satisfied if you just say, "I'm not going to answer." No one's forcing you to answer anything. My only complaint is when you come here and say "I;ve already answered many of these, I just haven't posted my answers, yet you still don't post. I'm not going to read your mind. If you're going to answer, answer. If you're not, don't.

But enough with the "I have the answers I'm just not posting them" nonsense.

Mike,

What's the title of this thread?

If you want to start an "Actual Errors in the Bible" thread, be my guest. But YOU're the one doing the sidestepping here, and I will NOT see you derail this conversation and drag the Bible down just so you can have youuuurrrrr preciousssss PFAL.

No sir, nice try, but no dice. YOU'RE the one claiming that PFAL exists to correct the Bible's errors. You're the one who's going to have to explain why PFAL has documented and documentable ACTUAL errors.

Thanks Zix. If I may add:

To support Wierwille's finding, one must also produce evidence that the section in Luke is even TALKING about Bar-mitzvah (a ceremony, as one poster noted, that did not even begin for centuries after Christ).

Another so far, incomplete, I'm not done yet non-answer.

Mike, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER, TAKE YOUR TIME. I'll be patient waiting for the answer, but I won't be patient with longwinded, non-answers, evading the question and calling it a clarification of the charge when in fact it is nothing of the kind.

Do you know what linguistic legerdemain is? You use it so well, I thought you might want to know that there's actually a term for it.

2 points to the first one who tells me where I first heard the term.

Ok, Mike brought the pretzels. Who brought the beer?

Mike, you don't know what time of year Luke 2:42 takes place? Honest? Really? Are you literate? Can you show the Bible just a FRACTION of the devotion you're showing PFAL?

Luke 2:42 takes place during Passover. It says so, right there in the context. Remember how PFAL taught us that in order to understand the BIBLE, we have to read VERSES in their context. Do you remember that in PFAL? It's about how to read the Bible you reject.

I ask you for proof that Wierwille is right, and you SPECULATE that God must have told him to trust an "old piece of literature" that none of us gets to see or read? HOGWASH, sir. Do not pass Go, Do not collect 1/10 of my income.

I told you, if you don't have an answer, don't write. This drivel you've provided is not an answer.

By the way, didn't I specifically say you can't quote the PFAL book as proof? It's the only thing you quoted as proof. That's rich. The proof that Wierwille is right is that in other parts of the PFAL book he talks about related things.

HUH? Your reply is logically, practically, scripturally and rationally flawed.

How about this.

In PFAL, Wierwille states that in Luke 2, Jesus was taken to the temple for bar-mitzvah at age 12 instead of 13 because he was considered illegitimate.

Wierwille made two statements that are without basis or proof.

1. That they were in town for bar-mitzvah.

2. That "illegitimate" children were treated differently than other children for the purpose of bar-mitvah.

Prove it. You casually dismiss this as an "apparent" contradiction or error. I call it an actual error. It is flat out on its face wrong. Go ahead and show me that Wierwille was right (and no, you don't get to quote the PFAL book as "proof"). And don't tell me that you have the proof but you're waiting for the right time for me to step up to your telescope to see it.

I'm not asking you to start another endless Mike thread. Just address one of the errors we've posted here. No more "I have the answers, trust me, I just haven't posted them yet." Just post already. It's hard to be patient when you always manage to find the time to post about how you have no time to post. You always find the time to post that you have the answers we're seeking from you, but you never have the time to post the answers. It's tiring, and it's wearing thin. Actually, it starting wearing thin weeks ago, but when I told you then to put up or shut up, you called me a cruel taskmaster. So I waited. And waited. You disappeared. You came back. And how much progress? Not an inch. Why? Because you're too busy to post anything other than that you're too busy to post.

You know what? No one demands anything from you. But when you keep coming on, saying we're wrong, providing ZERO documentation to even STATE your case, much less back it up, it gets tiring.

So I'll say it again. Put up or shut up. If you don't have time to type out the answer, then shut up until you do. I promise not to claim victory. But if you have the time to tell me you have the answer, then please have the decency to share it with the rest of the class.

We're waiting.

Put up.

You know the other option. -->

That's great, Mike. Now, if my calculations are right, you have about 12-15 other actual errors to address.

I don't know if Wierwille KNEW that Ouija boards are a recent invention. But if he did, I think it's a fair teaching tool. Yes, you got the word right - pedagogical.

By the way, I wouldn't rely so heavily on Gamaliel if I were you. Wierwille's movement came to nought.

But then, we already agreed on another thread that Gamaliel was wrong.

WordWolf, you disappoint me old friend.

The word in Luke 14:33 is apotasso, not apostasia. It is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

Acts 21:21 contains the only other NT usage of this word (besides II Thessalonians).

I see no evidence of positive usage. The Septuagint, while not necessarily authoritative, will offer help regarding the usage of this word.

George,

I did not know that. Very enlightening.

In my opinion, it's fair game to use modern anachronisms to make a point (ie, the prophet Elisha doesn't come out to meet Naaman because he's having tea and chocolate chip cookies). It's a device. Maybe they didn't have Oija boards. But they had other stuff.

There is no Two Towers extended version, yet.

The still photo you posted is from Return of the King.

WordWolf:

You know better than anyone how long I've given thought to this subject, so I'm going to turn it around and place the burden on you:

Can you find, historically, a single usage of apostasia that is positive or neutral. It's always a rebellion, far as my research has taken me.

The question then becomes, if I'm right, what is the context of its usage in II Thessalonians? Is it a rebellion in God's favor? Or is it a rebellion against God? I don't know that the context is that clear, but I will say this: it does not mean "departure" any more than "overthrow" means to throw a basktball over the net. I think this is where Plots' discussion of ekklesia comes in handy: no one reading "apostasia" would break it into its composite words to come up with a technical meaning. Except, of course, Victor Paul Wierwille.

Am I right? Am I wrong? Carry on.

Hmmm.

Rastafari in you?

Italy in you?

Rael in you?

Antidisestablishmentary in you?

Trinity in you?

The suffix "ian" means "follower of" or "subsrciber to a viewpoint or position."

Wierwille's etymology of "Christian" is ludicrous. Excellent catch.

*****

Christ in you is sonship. You in Christ is fellowship. This distinction is horse... never mind.

Vertical Limit, I think you nailed that one right from the start: it's an interpretation error, not a "2+2=5" error. But I agree with you wholeheartedly that it IS an error. A few verses might persuade me otherwise. I'll study it if you will.

I wouldn't worry about parroting the doctrinal threads, though. The point of this thread is to sort out actual errors in PFAL. Of necessity, there will be some overlap.

WordWolf: I always chuckled at that observation. If only "the dead in Christ" will rise, then those who are NOT in fellowship at the time of their death will not rise, and that goes against a MAJOR TWI and PFAL doctrine.

I don't think this is in PFAL, but it's in Are the Dead Alive Now:

Wierwille's definition of "apostasia" ("a departure") is simply incorrect. As Inigo Montoya would say: you keep using that word. I do no sink it means what you sink it means.

Apostasia means "rebellion." It is always a bad thing. It is NOT a reference to the rapture or the gathering together or the first resurrection or any other good time will be had by all Biblical prophecy. It's a BAD THING, and we don't want to be a part of it.

Wierwille's definition is fictional.

Mike,

According to you, PFAL is a more pure form of the Word of God. Therefore, it should have no contradictions at all, much less a long list that can be broken up into errors of interpretation and actual errors.

Very nice try, but it contradicts your whole rationale that PFAL is needed because the Bible has been corrupted.

Dang nice try, though.

Activity on this thread has pretty much stalled because...

a. Mike has vanished?

b. Raf gets too cocky whenever anyone else posts?

c. We've pretty much nailed all the 2+2=5 errors?

d. We have lives?

In any event, I'll compile the list and post it at some point. Many thanks to all for the contributions. If you want to send more, post it here or e-mail me privately.

Raf

We're distinguishing in this thread between "actual errors" and "doctrinal differences" (or, as I've called them previously, errors of interpretation). I think I understand what Wierwille was saying when he talked about Christ as being "absent." The Apostle Paul even said that while we are present in the body, we are absent from the Lord. How could we be absent from him if he is not absent from us? How are we to handle this statement?

Point is, you may feel it's error, and I may feel it's error, but it's a stretch to call it "actual error" as defined in this thread.

An actual error would be something like "Wierwille said Moses brought nine of each kind of animal on the ark, including great whales and fish."

A correction to something I said earlier:

In the extended DVD edition, Gandalf does not reveal the origin of Gollum. He DOES say that Gollum used to be called Smeagol, but he reveals nothing substantive about Smeagol.

This is in the scene where they're resting in Moria.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheEnd:

I found some more info on ekklesia. It looks like it can be included as an actual error after all. It's pretty good but also pretty long and complicated. I'm trying to trim it down and summarize it.

---

Have at it.

Here's the basis of my question: What is the difference in meaning between "called out" and the actual definition of "ekklesia." I thought Wierwille's definition in the Green Book was pretty much the same as the article Plots quoted. So if you asked me to distinguish between Wierwille's meaning and the "true" meaning, in my own words, I couldn't do it. So what am I missing? Home that helps.

*****

Steve,

I think you can handle your observation the same way I handled the Kingdom of God/Heaven observation in my original post:

In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the Gentiles in Romans 11:13 are unbelievers, not members of hte church of God.

In truth, the Gentiles of Romans 11:13 are Christian believers. Paul never speaks of the Church of God as distinct from Jews and Gentiles. He speaks of the Church of God as COMPOSED OF Jews and Gentiles. Some may consider this an error of interpretation, but the evidence for it is so clear, it belongs in the actual error category.

How's that?

*****

Simon,

In PFAL, Wierwille writes that Eve made a mistake by considering the question that the devil had propounded (p. 254).

In truth, "considering" is not a mistake. One MUST, logically, consider something before rejecting it. We do not know whether something is in keeping with God's Word unless we consider it. If God says "Do not eat peanut butter," and someone comes along and says "God didn't say you couldn't have peanut butter and jelly," you need to consider that before rejecting it. Granted, that consideration may be brief. But consideration alone is not a mistake.

Well done.

[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 07, 2003 at 6:42.]

Mike,

You've made it clear that you will not entertain any point of view that leads you away from your idolatrous course. That's fine with me. I am not going to entertain any point of view that leads me toward your idolatrous course. So, we're at an impasse. Keep the case closed. No amount of phone calls will change that.

And "aloof?" Please, at least choose a word that reflects my thinking. Insistent. Adamant. Unwilling to bow before Baal. But aloof? Really, you can do better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by E. W. Bullinger:

It is better to be brief than tedious.

Shakespear Richard III, act i, sc 4

---

Ethelbert,

I apologize for the length of my post. My post would have been MUCH shorter if not for the fact that I deliberately quote that which I am responding to (sorry to my grammar teacher for that last sentence).

Mike,

You worry me. You really do. Seek help.

Mighty convenient, leaving without addressing a single error in your God-breathed class.

quote:

---

You can turn down the offer like the upper leadership did if you want, but MY response to this deplorable situation is "Here am I, send me, Daddy. I'll give it a try if no one else will."

---

"If no one else will."

There's a safe bet.

Waaaaah Waah waaaaah waaaaaaaaah.

Sorry for whining.

Mike, you're delusional.

Wierwille did not tell us to read the Epistles every day for three months. He told us to read The Word. And the thought that he would want us to abandon the King James in its entirety, focusing only on the verses he quotes in the collaterals, runs counter to the very content of those collaterals.

I'm going to ask at this time that you do not call me. Your assertion that we would save time in a phone conversation misses the point that you are making absurd claims in a public setting, and that those claims must be addresses publicly.

You say you do not seek to change my mind. I call that a lie. What is it you seek, if not to persuade us all to your point of view? If you do not seek to change our minds, then you are failing in your missionary task.

No, Mike, this conversation, if it continues at all, stays public. I will not be drawn into an endless telephone conversation in order to have you skillfully avoid answering the points we're all raising here. No. Save your quarter. Do not call.

I reject your idolatry, Mike. I will not be persuaded otherwise, not by you, not by the false god you worship. I do not need 27 years to bow down to your idol. You have disgraced your teacher, and become a caricature of those who loved him. By recognizing his faults without rejecting everything he taught, I submit that I have far more respect for the legacy of Victor Paul Wierwille than you do.

I continue to pray for you.