Raf

Steve: Regarding my citation of the scriptures being profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction (along with my decision to leave out "instruction in righteousness") I must inform you that my decision was deliberate. I left out "instruction in righteousness precisely because of how Wierwille interpreted that verse. In order for a debate to have meaning, the debaters must agree to certain premises. Mike's premises are easy to discern. They simply parrot Wierwille's written works. So in order for a debate to have meaning, the terms must be set by Wierwille. My contention all along has been that following that standard will prove that Wierwille's written works do not fit his very own definition of what it means to be God-breathed. So effective was this approach that Mike is pretending, either to himself or to us (or both) that he may not necessarily agree with Wierwille's definition of "God-breathed." A lie? A choice. So, I agree with you that Wierwille was in error when he tried to say that "instruction in righteousness" was nothing more than a summary of "doctrine, reproof and correction." But I would put that squarely under error of interpretation. Maybe someday I will be convinced that it is an actual error. If you'd care to make a more detailed argument, I'm all ears. Oakspear: Yeah, I know, sorry. The potential was always there for this to become a "Mike Wars" thread. That it happened should surprise no one. I saw Mike setting a trap in his questions to Jerry, and I knew that if Jerry answered, the result would be a huge thread derailment. Troubledwine's posts kept everything on track. Jerry: Your posts are stellar. I have a minor quibble. I'm almost certain we've passed 15 by now. :P--> The Living Epistles Society

You almost had me going there. The only reason you don't agree with Wierwille on his definition of "God-breathed" is that you haven't finished rationalizing it to yourself yet. The bottom line remains is that if he was right about the meaning of God breathed, then PFAL FAILS to meet that standard. Period. You've dodged some. You've ignored others. You've addressed none. I agree. You don't have to. But if you're going to keep coming onto this thread to tell me how wrong I am, the least I expect is the courtesy of a correction. The Word is profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction. You have reproved, but offered no correction, Do your Biblical duty or shut up. I'd settle for one. But you see, you accuse me of disrespecting PFAL. I do not. I respect PFAL for what it is. It is YOU who disrespects PFAL by dressing it in a quality Wierwille never intended for it. You have made it yourrrrrr preciousssss. I expect you to show me the answers to my questions, not to tell me the answers exist and leave me as an agent of Satan. More on that in a second... And there you are wrong, sir. We repeatedly ask you to show us how it fits, you DENY us the information and have the unmitigated GALL to accuse us of not wanting it? How DARE you? You owe ME an apology, not to mention many other people who have been so danged patiently waiting for you to provide answers. It is YOU, sir, who have declared an outright refusal to listen to any opposing point of view. Don't you DARE try to accuse us of the same when we have been waiting for you to answer any of these questions. If you don't want to answer them, fine, that's your privilege. But to come here and accuse us of not wanting the answers is an insult, and I will not stand for it. I expect an apology. And they all left you as soon as you said that, right? Unfit, my butt. Address ONE ERROR. Put up or shut up, Mike. And if you're going to shut up, I won't hold it against you. It's your right. But that which thou doest, do quickly. I never accused you of being afraid. No one with that much unmitigated gall can have such fear. You used an AWFUL lot of words to tell us you'd be dodging our questions. Fine, it is your right. I wholeheartedly agree. But I want you to know something: I think you're an unfit researcher, and I'm going to tell all my friends to ignore your posts. Yeah, real mature there, Meek Master Mike.

I don't know if Jerry's views have changed in the last two years, but I can sum up his statements from way back when. The conflicting statements in Galatians and James led him to believe first that James had no place in the canon of scripture, and later, that James has as much right to be in the canon as Galatians. Ultimately, he allowed that the Bible CAN contradict itself. 1. This leads to an important question: Can the Bible contradict itself and still be the Word of God? Some would say yes. Others would say no. I have no doubt whatsoever that Wierwille would say no. Therefore, since this thread addresses the view that Wierwille's works are God-breathed, we are bound in this discussion by Wierwille's definition of God-breathed. If he was wrong about that, then we have to agree that his works are NOT on par with the Bible according to his own definition. That's why I was trying to block your question to Jerry. It would have led to a derailment of the thread on a substantive issue deserving of its own thread. We've had some frivolous derailments before, but they were frivolous, and it was relatively easy to get back on topic. It would be VERY difficult to get back on topic once the issue of Bible contradictions became the subject of discussion. That's why I repeatedly insisted that if you want to discuss it, start another thread. According to Wierwille, God-breathed means no errors or contradictions. Therefore, for his own work to be considered God-breathed, it would have to meet his own standard for it. If he was wrong about that, he could be wrong about anything.

Troubledwine: You were not interrupting. Your comments are actually more on topic than mine. Mike and I are discussing how to approach the errors identified on this thread. But you're discussing an actual error. So there was no need to apologize for "interrupting" the discussion by returning to the main thread topic. That said, you made some good observations. Wierwille's insistence that the body was formed, the soul was made and the spirit was created just crumbles on close examination, doesn't it? The bible says the spirit was formed, the spirit was made, and the spirit was created (actually, does it ever say the spirit was created)? I thik Wierwille's definition of "made" is an actual error too, especially as he distinguished it from "create." Spirit existed before God placed it in Adam. How do we know this? Because God is Spirit. So are the angels. SO there was a substance existing of which the thing made consists, which is Wierwille's definition for "made." Wierwille's definition of "made" is so convoluted that I don't know that it can be nailed down long enough to call it an actual error. Who was it that used the analogy? "It's like nailing Jello to a wall." Further, remember how Wierwille said "formed, made and created" CANNOT be synonymous, or words have no meaning? He said the same of "body, soul and spirit." God uses precise terms to mean precise things, and they cnnot be synonymous, period. I think a strong case can be made that, Biblically, made and created are synonymous. Meanwhile, he has no problem saying "the promise of the father" = "power from on high" = "baptized with the Holy Ghost." Had they all occurred in one verse, Wierwille would have had conniptions and tried to explain how they couldn't be the same, or language would be useless as a form of communication! My, he did exaggerate, didn't he?

Since you hold PFAL to be "God-breathed," I would expect nothing less of you. We presume you and Wierwille agree on the meaning of God-breathed. However, you do not have the right to expect us to do the same, as we do not agree with each other on the definition of "God-breathed." The PFAL book we have is not the original. The original actually contained more errors. The most recently published one as of the time of VPW's death still contains errors, which you still have not addressed. I presume for the sake of this discussion that it is only the most recently edited version of Wierwille's book, circa 1982, that you would consider "God-breathed." Correct me if I am mistaken. That is PRECISELY why I deliberately sought to free this list of errors of interpretation. The errors we have listed are all actual errors that cannot be attributed to interpretation OR to your so-called "middlemen." My problem with your approach is that you still fail to show how it resolves even ONE of the actual errors we posted. The problem is not in your approach, but in the underlying premise. In the case of PFAL, the error is in the actual writing, intent and doctrine of the writer. Its author is not God, but a man who made errors. It doesn't disqualify EVERYTHING he wrote, but it disqualifies that which he got wrong. The bottom line is that you refuse to believe Wierwille ever got anything wrong in print (in the PFAL book and collaterals). THAT PREMISE IS FALSE. That is our basic disagreement. You're right. It's highly unlikely that we're going to see enough proofreader errors to cause major problems in PFAL. Of the actual errors we've listed, which you've still failed to address, NOT ONE can be attributed to a proofreader error. And I contend that not one can be attributed to an error of interpretation (okay, maybe one or two). But in order for your position to hold, ALL THE ACTUAL ERRORS WE'VE POSTED must be attributable to interpretation. The vast majority are not. If you're betting your life on these, remind me not to stand too close to you. :)--> That's two points. But I'll let that pass. I agree with both statements and I agree that they embody, perhaps, PFAL's most lasting value (for me, anyway). Again, I agree. The errors in PFAL are inherent to the text. They did not need to creep in. The author put them there on purpose, not realizing he was wrong. Again, that's two statements, not one. The first is defensible. The second, reprehensible. You cannot understand PFAL without the Bible. But you sure can understand the Bible without PFAL. We could argue this for years, but you are so entrenched in your idolatry on that subject that you've already repeatedly declared a lack of willingness to listen to any alternative viewpoint. So I'll save my breath for that inflatable date I've got stashed next to my pirate copy of Christian Family and Sex Sex Sex. You said that already. I have yet to see you employ your techniques to ANY of the actual errors on this thread (save for a pathetic attempt to explain the Nathan record). I'm starting to wonder if you were being honest when you spoke of monitoring these message boards ever since Waydale. If you had, you would know that Jerry and I had a very long and protracted debate about this very subject. The reconciliation of James and Galatians is a fascinating project. I find it most enjoyable. It should take you more than 20 years. I know it will take me at least as long. But it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. If you decide to start another thread on the subject, I know there are plenty of people who would be happy to share their observations with you. Fascinating, fascinating subject.

Oh my God! A substantive post! I should shut up and declare victory right now, just for getting a substantive post out of the guy. Of course, it did not address a single actual error in PFAL, nor did it address the premise that in order for PFAL to be God-breathed, it has to meet its own definition of "God-breathed," but shoot, we actually got some substance out of Mike! Yeeeeeehaw!

Contact me by e-mail and I will be happy to give you my home address, Mike. I do have a copy of all Wierwille's books. I just didn't have them at work with me one day when I posted. Someone must have been confused when I wrote that, but I DO have that book, and all the others.

You got "roped into" NOTHING. In calling PFAL God-breathed, which you have, you submit yourself to its definition of "God-breathed." If you do not accept PFAL's definition of God-breathed, then you can allow for the existence of actual errors in PFAL without demanding of it the perfection it demands of God's Word. I would find that viewpoint silly, but then, some would find my own viewpoints silly. Food fight. But you haven't done that. You deny that these errors are "actual" by consistently referring to them as "apparent." As long as you continue to do that, the purpose of the thread remains self-evident. Are you trying to say that Wierwille was WRONG when he wrote that one preposition out of place would cause your Bible to crumble to pieces? If you will agree that there might be something in PFAL that is wrong, a flat out actual error, then there's no need to continue the discussion. Whether you intended to or not, you just called me a tool of the adversary. Not that I'm offended, mind you. I think you're an idolater. Food fight. On the contrary, you DO mind talking about definitions and proofs, as evidenced by your failure and refusal to do so. You say you have exhausted the benefits of doing so, but in my opinion, the only thing you have done is abandoned God's Word for idolatry, for a position that is so unstable that a fair conversation is impossible, as you are constantly shifting the terms of the discussion. Using many many words, you say very very little. I just hope that enough people can see the foolishness of exalting the flawed works of a flawed man over the Bible. If you can convince a few sycophantic idolaters of your position, so be it. But it's no guarantee for truth, as LCM found out.

Mike wrote: If you don't think you're being rude, don't defend it. I don't mind you placing controversial ideas on the table. I DO mind your repeated method of coming in, claiming to have an answer or approach, refusing to share it, and then claiming to have no time to post the information you've spent the last five, six, 27 or 28 years gathering. Address a (supposed) actual error and let's discuss it (you seem to be on track with that in your "private interpretation" post). If you want to attack the integrity of the Bible remnants, start another thread. I'm sure plenty of people would be happy to engage you in that discussion. But if you want to discuss how to address what you laughably call "apparent" errors in PFAL, then I'm all ears.

I have not seen the article. Could you summarize its relevant points?

Mike, In this, I wholeheartedly agree. When we come to a discrepancy in the Bible, we deal with it using certain methods, procedures and principles. Here's the problem, and precisely the derailment I am attempting to avoid: Your premise is and has been that PFAL is God-breathed. In order for that premise to be true, PFAL must adhere to its own definition of what it means to be God-breathed. This thread has shown, repeatedly, that PFAL does not meet that standard. We have shown it with example after example after example. Now, how do you intend to address those examples? So far, you have done so by no means except for evasion, obfuscation, "linguistic legerdemain" and shifting the terms of the discussion in order to place the Bible under the scrutiny we are placing PFAL. That's a derailment and I'll tell you why. We can all agree that in order for PFAL to be God-breathed, it has to at the very least meet its own definition of what it is to be God-breathed, right? Now, in order for us to agree that the Bible meets Wierwille's standard for what it means to be God-breathed, we must conclude that the Bible has no errors or contradictions. The problem is, not everyone on this thread can or will agree with Wierwille's standard. HE must agree with himself. But we don't have to agree with him. There is honest disagreement about what the term "God-breathed" means. But Wierwille's definition is plain and leaves no room for even ONE PREPOSITION to be out of place. Does his own written work meet that standard? Now, if Jerry (with his definition of God-breathed) begins to answer your question about Bible contradictions (I'll save you the suspense: he has no problem with their existence), and Goey (with a similar definition) and Zixar (with a third definition) and I (with a fourth) all start answering your question, in no time flat we will have a rambling thread that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual errors in PFAL. It will be an endless debate about what it means for a scripture to be "given by inspiration of God." This is the derailment I am trying to prevent. You're making a huge presumption when you imply that the people on this thread (or at the Cafe) agree that the Bible is without errors or contradictions. You are holding us to a standard set by PFAL, but many of us reject PFAL's authority to set that standard. YOU, on the other hand, hold PFAL to be "God-breathed" and even MORE reliable than the Bible "remnants," as you disrespectfully refer to the book Wierwille publicly revered. So, adopting YOUR logic, I may fairly conclude that the Bible will have errors and discrepancies attributable to the "fact" that the scriptures are but remnants of "the Word of God." YOU, on the other hand, are the one who has "painted yourself into a corner." For while you have provided us with your very own answer as to why the Bible may contradict itself from time to time, you have given NO REASON why PFAL might do the same. And we're not talking about typos or proofreaders' mistakes. We're talking about demanding, of God's most recent and undefiled revelation, that it meet its own standards for being "God-breathed." You keep trying to get away from that, when it is the sole underlying issue of this thread. You want to come here and accuse us of inconsistency (aka, painting ourselves into a corner), when we never claimed the "consistency" mantle for ourselves! It is a classic straw man argument. Accuse us of setting a standard, then chastise us for not meeting it. The only problem is, we never set any such standard! Wierwille, on the other hand, set a standard for what it means to be "God-breathed." Part of that standard was that there could be no errors or contradictions. NOT ONE PREPOSITION can be out of place in PFAL or any of the collateral books in order for your premise to hold. That is the standard set in PFAL itself. The integrity of the Bible is a separate issue, worthy of discussion, but not the point of this thread. What the people in this thread THINK of the Bible, and how to approach its discrepancies, is a separate issue, worthy of discussion, but not the point of this thread. This thread is about "actual errors" in PFAL. If YOU continue to contend that PFAL is "the God-breathed Word," then the burden is on YOU to explain its the errors and contradictions. You have failed to address even one. Your continued efforts to put the Bible on trial notwithstanding, you have FAILED to derail this thread. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 27, 2003 at 13:12.]

Mike, start a thread about how to handle apparent Bible contradictions. Have at it. This thread is about actual errors in PFAL and your derailment is intentional. And rude.

Thanks, tw. Nice work. I want to highlight one of Jerry's observations because it's tucked into the whole "image" discussion when, in fact, it is its very own actual error. Wierwille writes that the image of God, namely spirit, that was "created" in Adam. The Bible uses the word "made," which is contrary to Wierwille's precise definitions. According to Wierwille, the body was formed, the soul was made and the spirit was created. The Bible says very clearly that man was "made" in the image of God. Since Wierwille equates the "image of God" with "spirit," his insistence that the spirit was "created" is an actual error.

Ok, first Hope: The discussion on Nathan is intended to point out the principle of "correction." So go to the PFAL book and look for the part where Wierwille discusses doctrine, reproof and correction. You'll find your quote on p. 86. (Just thought I'd retrace my steps, in case you have to look for it again someday). Now, Zix: PFAL p. 78 So we see, first, that Wierwille made both statements. Zixar was not confused. Neither was Jerry. The statement I just quoted is so absurd I cannot believe I missed it for the original list. God has to give us spirit to communicate with us because God is Spirit and cannot communicate to our minds or brains. Well, not to be a pain in the butt about it, but HOW CAN OUR SPIRIT COMMUNICATE WITH OUR BRAINS IF GOD ALMIGHTY CANNOT? Duhhhhhh. Terrific actual error.

Jesus Christ is Not God, p. 130 Zixar has inadvertently pointed out another actual error. For you see, according to this statement, God is MANNA! :D--> The other point Zix raises requires a bit of digging. I'll get to it today.

I'm going to jump in and ask Jerry not to answer Mike's question (he may, of course, choose to ignore my request). Mike, this thread is about actual errors in PFAL and Wierwille's books, which you claim to be God-breathed and therefore perfect. You have FAILED to address a single alleged "actual error," choosing repeatedly to attack the integrity of the Bible rather than defend the integrity of youuurrrrrr preciousssss PFAL. I am going to say this again: If you want to start a thread about actual errors in the Bible, be my guest. But STOP trying to derail this thread. It's rude.

Wow. Busy day. Nice posts all around. A few replies: Vertical Limit: Ditto to what you said. Goey: Ditto to what you said, too. Zixar: A couple of things to reply to here. First, I agree with your premise. It's the purpose of this thread. Until the figures of speech discussion (in which I conceded in the very first post that yeah, maybe it is an interpretational error), we tried to hold to that. The figures of speech discussion came several hundred posts into this thread, so I figured the track record of "actual errors" covered our little diversion there. Technically, it was a derailing, but I'm not complaining. The figures of speech debate totally validates your point. My only contention is that an uninformed reader might think you're making your point as though I am unaware of it. To the contrary, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the criteria of actual errors and always have. The other point you make, Zix, is, "Wierwille never said everything out of his mouth was straight from revelation. Treating every niggling thing he said as if he did is pedantry taken to ridiculous extremes." You do realize, of course, that the purpose of this thread was, in part, to address exactly the extreme and unsound point of view you criticize as "pedantry taken to ridiculous extremes." In other words, we agree. Again. Finally, you say: "Any hint that our arguments are made from malice diminishes their impact to the audience, regardless of their truth." To which I reply, anyone who has read this far into the thread and come away with the impression that the argument we're making is purely malicious will have already reached that conclusion before reading anything. I respect their RIGHT to do so, but I do not respect their DECISION to do so, and will not bend over backwards to assure them of my integrity (since NOTHING I do or say will have that effect). JERRY!!!!!! Jerry rocks. God bless you, man. Okay, let's address the errors Jerry has proposed: 1. Wierwille's definition of "private interpretation." First, I totally agree that II Peter 1:20 is discussing the ORIGIN, not the MEANING of scripture. I see no room for debate about this. I hesitated to call it an "actual error" because I thought it might fall under "error of interpretation." Would anyone like to discuss this one? Have at it. 2. God can only speak to that which He is. What can I say? You nailed it. Actual error. Any debate? 3. The image of God is spirit. Ditto. Discussion? 4. Regarding Nathan: I actually changed my mind on this subject while writing this post, so forgive me if I seem to contradict myself in the paragraphs which follow. Wierwille begins with an illustration and I give him license to have some fun with his source material as much as I would any other preacher (I loved the way Ralph Dubofsky expressed Jesus' thoughts after the disciples questioned whether it was him walking on the water. According to Dubofsky, Jesus wanted to reply, "YOU IDIOTS! WHO ELSE WOULD BE OUT HERE?") The only straightforward quote in Wierwille's exposition (which is clearly false but arguably forgivable as a rhetorical device) is "You are the man!" I doubt that's the scripture he refers to in his statement. The problem with Wierwille's summary, as I see it, is not the throwaway line "isn't that a wonderful verse of scripture." It is the following, which Goey referred to (and which Plots would have to agree is NOT a rhetorical device and not acceptable by anyone's definition): Umm, no he would not. The BEST that can be said for Wierwille's statement is that it's baseless speculation. That's the BEST! Wierwille was quoted as saying "where the Word of God remains silent, he who speaks is a fool." Fine. In telling this story, he was a fool. One thing that needs to be stated (or is it repeated?): Wierwille's exact statement regarding the women of the kingdom is as follows: There are so many actual errors in that statement it's hard to tell where to begin. I've heard one attempted defense of the statement, but I utterly reject it as a willful defiance of logic and language. Here are the errors. 1. "Technically." Technically means there's a technicality. That technicality would have to exist in law or culture. Well, we know that the technicality did not exist in law, for we have the Law and we know that Wierwille's statement was not part of it. We also know from Jewish culture that there is no such provision, for Jewish culture was... Shoot, it was the LAW! There is nothing in the Torah or the Talmud to back up Wierwille's assertion. Therefore, technically, Wierwille's statement is an actual error. Second: what's this business about no one having a right to say anything? If no one had a right to say anything, then Nathan had no right to say anything. If no one had a right to say anything, then the commandment against adultery is meaningless. Defense of Wierwille in this matter requires denial of the Biblical record and wishful thinking. As Goey said, the only defense of his statement is the speculation that God revealed this stuff to Wierwille directly. I've often said people seem to resort to "revelation" in order to validate opinions and positions that have no basis in fact or truth. How can you argue with "God told me?" I can't. And I won't. I can only compare the declared revelation with the Bible, and when they conflict, I'm tossing the garbage and keeping the Bible. That was the standard Wierwille (indirectly) taught me. It was the standard I tried to hold before I ever heard of Wierwille, and it's the standard I will continue to hold, regardless of any efforts to exalt the word of a man over God's Word. Finally (really): You are correct sir! Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. That statement was nimoypneustos (Spock-breathed).

Plots, While I disagree that this is a "legitimate surmise," I do think it's acceptable rhetorical speculation for preaching purposes. It was a mistake to include it in the book, but FAR from being a big deal. If you go back to the first pages on this thread, you'll see that I did indeed "give a preacher a break" by questioning whether such rhetorical devices should be included on an actual errors list. My exact words, picking up from where Jerry's quote left off... A few days later, I think it was, I wrote the following: So yes, I gave a preacher a break, but not the opposing viewpoint that led to the creation (creation! creation!) of this thread.

An all-new potential let's discuss it and see if we agree actual error maybe. I've really got to stop allowing Zix to write my intros. Anyways, this comes from Mark Clarke in the doctrinal forum. What say ye? Actual error? Or room for debate?

Hmm. Let's see. Either I quote the part where I say "okay, maybe it's an error of interpretation..." or I block the creamed corn with large leaves of Romaine Lettuce and return fire with mashed potatoes. And no, I'm not gonna forget the gravy.

The horse moved! Shoot it! Shoot it!

Yawwwwn. Even if I were to concede that point, which I don't, Wierwille is still in error for stating that figures of speech emphasize their points over other points in God's Word (or, in Wierwille's words, God would not leave it to a mere mortal to decide what's important in His Word - that's why He used figures of speech). Look, I've said from the get-go that Wierwille's error is probably one of interpretation, not an "actual error." The fact that you disagree with me on this only proves that point. Can we PLEASE drop this now?

Did he just call us silly? Yo mama too! Food fight!!!!!!

I apologize for inferring that you made an implication based on my implied inference. This is so THE, you know that, don't you?

I never implied that your implication was less important or less heavily emphasized than my implication. That implication was your implication, not mine. Futhermore, yo mama! Can we stop now?