Rafael - In your post of Jan. 27, '03, 16:07, you wrote, "The Word is profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction." II Timothy 3:16 actually says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God [God-breathed], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
The Bible says that *all* scripture breathed by God is profitable for *four* things; doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness.
It's easy to see why you made this error, since Wierwille drilled into our heads "DOCTRINE, REPROOF, CORRECTION". How did VPW get rid of the fourth thing for which *all* God-breathed scripture is profitable? He retranslated II Timothy 3:16b as "...and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, which is instruction in righteousness."
Wierwille's reconstruction is not warrented by the Greek. The second half of II Timothy 3:16 in the King James Version is a perfectly adequate translation.
Wierwille read his meaning into the text by taking George Ricker Berry's translation and performing what troubledwine called a "word shift". Berry's translation is as follows:
"Every scripture [is] God-inspired and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for discipline which [is] in righteousness."
Wierwille transformed Berry's "for discipline which [is] in righteousness" into "which is instruction in righteousness".
It was so peaceful over on the "music" thread. I was grooving to the memories of Ted F and socks and posting my Bedtime CD Picks, really enjoying my escape from the Mike Wars.
I have liked the "Actual Errors" thread from the start...so logical...so rational... :)-->
But it has turned into another Mike thread
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
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."
Well said! I never noticed that point. The only way VP's definition of "create" could apply to God putting spirit in Adam was if Adam preceded the angels and of course God himself. "Silly it becomes"
What is that, actual error number 15? Anybody keeping count?
I corresponded briefly with Gerry when he first appeared on Waydale. I double checked his website just today. It does look like a fascinating read, but it also looks in skimming to solve the problem by cutting out James. That's why I asked Jerry to tell me plain.
Mike, it seems you want me to address how I deal with Bible contradictions based on my belief that PFAL if chock full of errors. That sounds like a fair question. But I don't want to be rude. You were here first and this thread was apparently started with you in mind. So I'll make a deal with you. You answer the 15 or so Actual Errors in PFAL that we've listed so far, to Rafael's satisfaction, and I'll tell you about how I deal with apparent contradictions in the Bible.
Okay people, I hate to seem like I'm hogging the forum. I considered myself done for the night, but I just read Mike's next post and I am...stunned.
Mr. Mike. You wrote,
I haven’t studied this out to know how exactly I’ve lined up my rough feel with what is written...
I’m not qualified right here and now to extract at once ALL the places where Dr uses that phrase and/or defines it.
My first response is, your blind acceptance of the perfection of something you haven't studied is dangerously naive. But it's actually worse than that. In the same post, you wrote...
Neither do any of you all NEED to have all these difficulties cleared up before accepting the challenge to come back to the pure written PFAL,...We’ve all only winged it, and I am reporting that there is an exciting adventure for those who check this out more carefully.
How do you justify "reporting" that there is an "exciting adventure for those who check this out more carefully" when, by your own admission, you haven't taken the time TO DO SO??
Do you know what the word "reporting" means? Do you not see the blatant HYPOCRISY in that invitation. How the he!! can you preach about an "exciting adventure" that results from something you claim you don't have the TIME or INCLINATION to do?
I am truly aghast Mike.
And one more thing. You should know that the people you're contending with on this thread HAVE TAKEN THE TIME to check this thing out VERY carefully, and we are "reporting" to you that it's full o holes.
When you finally get around to practicing what you preach, you'll find something much less than an exciting adventure.
Wake up dude!
JerryB
[This message was edited by Jbarrax on January 27, 2003 at 19:56.]
[This message was edited by Jbarrax on January 27, 2003 at 19:59.]
Man, this HTML stuff is a p.i.t.a.! :-)
[This message was edited by Jbarrax on January 27, 2003 at 20:03.]
How is everything bro? Yea, I hear you Jerry. Actually though, some of us like Mike because he is a text book example of PFAL, when taken to idolatrous extremes, is very harmful. All we have to do now is point Wierwille Apologists in the direction of Mike's posts and say "this is where PFAL worship can lead you." They get one wiff of Mike's act and straighten up very quickly. Much quicker than by your or my persuasion alone.
Thanks Mike. We greatly appreciate your input on Grease Spot Cafe. However, a few people actually take you seriously and are worried about your sanity. For there sake will you please occasionally write something intelligent. You know something that you have not read from one of Vic's books.
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-->
Yea, Troubledwine Rocks. He is an excellent bible student. One of the very best that I have seen on Grease Spot Cafe. It has been a long day for me at my business. It is now my nappy nap time. I better go and locate my bankie.
I was being a bit of a wise-guy, but I really do hate to see a thread that has, for the most part, been sane and logical, get derailed by illogical ramblings.
The participants in this thread have generally refrained from Wierwille bashing; the focus on the facts, rather than opinion or interpretation has been invaluable.
Might I suggest not letting Mike derail this thread by not engaging him in pseudo-debate over his "ideas".
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
1. That there are actual errors (not due to interpretation or "translation," middlement, proofreaders, etc.) in the PFAL book and Wierwille's other writings.
2. That those errors disqualify PFAL from its own definition of what it means to be "God-breathed."
3. That anyone who considers PFAL to BE God-breathed has to either explain the actual errors (ie, make them fit) or abandon PFAL's definition OF God-breathed in order to maintain that position.
Most of us would take 1 and 2 as self-evident, and this thread would not be as necessary (although Jerry proved years ago that it could be tons of fun).
But for those addressed in the third premise, the challenge could not be more grave. For if you cannot EXPLAIN the actual errors (and I contend you could not even if you tried), then you MUST admit VPW was wrong about "God-breathed" or abandon your position that PFAL IS God-breathed.
You may, as Mike did, choose to ignore the challenge. I never did a google search on Bible contradictions, as Mike suggested. Why not? Because I choose not to take the critics up on the challenge.
The difference between me and Mike is, I don't go to the other Web sites and tell them how wrong they are while refusing to address ANY of the contradictions they pose. I don't go there and ask them to explain how they approach difficulties in the theory of evolution to entrap them in an inconsistency. If I make the claim that the Bible has no errors or contradictions, then it is my job to address the errors and contradictions that are brought up. If I'm not going to do that (put up), then I will remain off their boards and silent (shut up).
I don't go there and tell them they are lousy researchers or unwilling to listen, without giving them any answers they seek. That's rude. And I'm not talking about "yo mama" rude. I'm talking about dishonest-and-disingenuous-debating-designed-to-cause-confusion-while-failing-to-address-the-very-purpose-of-this-discussion rude.
Which brings me back to the point:
Any discussion that fits into one of the three premises above should be considered on-topic.
Identifying actual errors is on-topic.
Challenging a posed "actual error" is on-topic.
Resolving an error is on-topic.
Explaining how you identify, challenge or resolve an error is on-topic.
The clever thing Mike tried to do yesterday was establish for US a consistency he demands of himself. That was getting us off-topic, and it explains my harshness yesterday.
Calling on us to apply the same principles to PFAL as we apply to the Bible assumes we all have the same principles in how to resolve errors in the Bible. We do not. Some of us try very hard to resolve difficulties in the Bible.
Some of us happily accept their existence as evidence that God worked with men. That discussion is fascinating, but it's not the subject of this thread. If we were to engage in that discussion, then the thread would simply be derailed.
Now, if Mike wants to attempt to re-define Wierwille's definition of God-breathed, I'm all ears. But I think we're all well aware that Wierwille did not allow for a view of the Word of God that allowed it to contradict itself.
What galls me about Mike, and I've said this repeatedly, is that he comes onto these threads declaring to all the world that he will NOT consider any viewpoint that shakes him from the belief that PFAL is God-breathed, then considers US "unfit researchers" who "don't WANT to see it fit." In other words, the man who has declared his mind closed for business accuses us of having closed minds. That's hypocrisy, and I'm tired of arguing with it.
On the other hand, you've got to appreciate a thread that brings back Karl Kahler AND Jerry Barrax.
Just a quick thought why this image idea is still fresh.
quote: And also Genesis 9 puts an interesting spin on this:
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
This image of God in Genesis is the same phrasing.
I wanted to elaborate on this idea a little bit. This is a section where God is giving instruction to Noah after the flood.
Now if the image of God is just the spirit of God in a believing man (as Wierwille teaches in PFAL) then are we to interpret this verse as saying that God does not want us to murder people with the spirit but go ahead and murder freely those without the spirit?
But again, if the image of God is a much larger concept than just the spirit, then it would tie into the many clear verses. Thou shalt not murder immediately coming to mind.
The context supports this larger concept idea as well because this is God laying the foundational precepts for the eight souls that stepped off the ark.
Actually, if you think about it a bit, some of these errors go away as soon as you don't require PFAL to be God-breathed any more.
Let's face it, there are some extremely intelligent people here who sat through PFAL many times and we didn't exactly jump up and smash the tv set when "God can only communicate with what He is..." came over the tape. Heck, I caught the "blood in the sperm" goof the first time I sat through it, but I let it go because I knew what he was trying to say.
PFAL is incomplete and inconsistent; therefore, it doesn't even have Gödel's Theorem to give it an "out"--either one automatically means that there are truths that cannot be derived or explained through it. Mike is the only individual I've seen who requires that PFAL be as infallible as the Word of God. Yet, he has already eliminated the entire Advanced Class on Power For Abundant Living as necessarily-true, ostensibly because VPW didn't mention it in his last teaching, but actually because in it Doctor said that all cancer was devil spirits, and VPW died from the disease, making him, by his own definition, possessed. Since this is unacceptable to Mike's belief system, he ignores it because he cannot refute it. Very convenient.
When PFAL was just a class by a man, we understood it to be the work of a man. We didn't require it to be perfect. But, as this thread shows, the more perfection we demand of it, the more it utterly fails to be perfect.
One last thing. It cannot be the fault of proofreaders or printers. If God gave PFAL to VPW by God-breathing it to him, and the final print version was printed before VPW died, then God certainly would have revealed to Wierwille any proofreading problems or printer errors before His Epistle to TWI was distributed. It wasn't corrupted after VPW's death. The Orange Book is, for all it's worth, "it". No amount of study will correct the errors--only releasing one's self from believing it to be the direct revelation of God can enable one to discern whatever good and notable truths lie within.
When I first took PFAL, I caught a few of the errors that have been posted in this thread, but didn't go nuts about them, because I fuly expected that the class would be the fallible work of a fallible man. Some of the things, like "God can only give or speak to what he is", I did not understand, but didn't stress out about it because I was willing to carry on without understanding everything!
The problem that I saw was how people, leadership and non-, often took what he said as above question. Even ideas that you could prove were wrong were brushed off if VP said it. His words were quoted as if they were scripture. Mike is not as unique as we think he is.
During my last year "in", I had a heated exchange with my HFC in his kitchen about "Jew and Judean". He was holding forth to the twiggies about how Yiddish was really Khazaric written in Hebrew characters which proved that modern-day Jews were really Khazars when I corrected him. He tried to brush me off, but I pressed the issue until I had to forcefully say "Doctor Wierwille was WRONG!" You could have heard a pin drop in that kitchen.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
I had a similar experience based on the Luke 2 discussion above. My fellowship coordinator was leading us through the Home Studies, and we got to the question about Jesus going to Jerusalem to go through bar-mitzvah, and I challenged him on it.
Funny thing was, this was taking place AFTER we had all left TWI. Still, it was VERY difficult to get him to agree that The Way was wrong about Jesus going through bar-mitzvah, that the verse in question had nothing to do with bar-mitzvah, and that an unnamed "old piece of literature" was not an acceptable standard for basing our understanding of the Bible.
I think a great many people in TWI were always willing to SAY that Wierwille wasn't perfect and that he could make mistakes. But egads, to actually point one out would have caused a riot!
From there to here.
And Zix, I must say, that was one excellent post. Thank you.
I'm working today and am missing out on many post responses I'd love to make. Maybe some I'll get to tomorrow, but this one from Oakspear I can answer quickly now.
Oakspear wrote:
>When I first took PFAL, I caught a few of the errors that have been posted in
>this thread, but didn't go nuts about them, because I fuly expected that the
>class would be the fallible work of a fallible man.
>
Ditto with me. I also thought that some of what I spotted as errors may be me simply overlooking something. I figured that in time I'd know more and some would clear up. I was right on this, but some still do linger also.
>Some of the things, like "God can only give or speak to what he is", I did
>not understand, but didn't stress out about it because I was willing to carry
>on without understanding everything!
>
Very similar reaction went on in me. For this particular item, in recent years, I have come to regard it as a revelation to Dr, NOT an extraction from the received texts. I now see how it fits VERY well with the existant texts.
>The problem that I saw was how people, leadership and non-, often took what
>he said as above question. Even ideas that you could prove were wrong were
>brushed off if VP said it. His words were quoted as if they were scripture.
>Mike is not as unique as we think he is.
>
Thank you for documenting this. I too noticed many flocking to canonize all that Dr said in the early Seventies. I totally resisted this, sometimes with a passion. I thought it a rush to judgement on the part of these immature grads.
I maintainded this stance for 27 years. Only after this long time, and MANY learning incidents, and a slowly but steadily developing relationship with my heavelly Father... ONLY AFTER ALL THIS have I recently decided it's finally time to commit to PFAL.
It wasn't formal proofs and totally spelled out logic that got me to make this decision. Nobody bets their life on mere intellectual calculations. It's a heart thing mostly, that needs as much calculating as possible for a foundation, but it's mostly a heartfelt guts feel that will motivate one to risk all. (This part is addressed to one of Gerry's posts too.)
So, you're right in saying "Mike is not as unique as we think he is."
There were LOTS of people respecting Dr this way back then, SOME going way overboard. I resisted this, but eventually decided to really believe in Dr's ministry after a long detailed survey of the material and its applications. It took me 11 years of pondering before I went out WOW! Many to most of those early, fast believers in "God's hand on Dr" did NOT do as complete a survey, and when the storms came they got talked out of it. Because of my survey and applications I got talked INTO it IN SPITE OF THE STORMS! I believe as others see the data I've seen more grads will COME BACK to God's Word in PFAL.
Please just come out and say that PFAL is the "new" "last revelation" "forgotten epistles" or something like Joseph Smith did and all the rest.
You can summarize your complete position in this one sentence "God wrote PFAL therefore it cannot be wrong or contradictory and supercedes all previous written revelation even if at cross purposes with what has already been revealed."
Well, I for one am not going to commit to PFAL. I believe that Dr Wierwille was wrong to challenge people to master the collaterals. It's arrogant. Why would I want to MASTER writings that are trying to explain the Bible? The point of the collaterals is to help me understand the Word not replace the Word. I would rather MASTER the Bible not a set of loosely written materials that tend to be under researched , over plagiarized, and misdirected.
It appears, that you will never know subjects not written in the collaterals. You will never know about the spiritual significance of the sacrifices, the temple etc... because THEY AREN'T IN THE COLLATERALS.
ATTENTION EVERYONE!!! I HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT!!! THE REASON MIKE CANNOT PUT UP A DEFENSE FOR ANY OF THE ACTUAL ERRORS WE ARE DISCUSSING IS BECAUSE HE DOES NOT ACTUALLY READ THE BIBLE.
You are firing an empty gun Mike. Or blanks at best. I have been waiting for you to post one good explanation and (yawn) you bore me. You would at least be entertaining if you offered your own blend of shoot from the hip, charisma filled TEACHER spooge with some Bible verses. Have you ever even quoted a verse? We don't even get that from you.
Rafael - Regarding whether or not Wierwille's treatment of II Timothy 3:16 was an actual error or an error of interpretation you wrote, "If you'd care to make a more detailed argument, I'm all ears." I intend to take you up on your invitation, but the level of detail in this particular examination of the question is only going to be mid-range.
Two of the things you indicated as being germane to this thread were showing that PFAL contains actual errors "not due to interpretation or 'translation', middlemen, proofreaders, etc.", and showing PFAL does not fit its own definition for being God-breathed.
Without going into detail of the actual Greek at this time, I am going to say that "All scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" is an acceptable translation of II Timothy 3:16. I could demonstrate why, but that would get into high-end detail pricing.
On page 81 of PFAL Wierwille presented *his* version of II Timothy 3:16, "All scripture *is* given by inspiration of God [God-breathed], and *is* profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [which is] instruction in righteousness."
Later on pages 81 and 82 Wierwille wrote, "...All Scripture is profitable in three areas: (1) doctrine... (2) reproof... (3) correction... All three of these are 'instruction in righteousness'".
According to PFAL the order of the words in the God-breathed Word must be perfect; and, if you add, subtract or change words, you no longer have the Word of God. The rest of this argument will show that Wierwille, in coming up with his version of II Timothy 3:16, disregarded the order of the words, added words, and changed the meanings of words. And... that he did it deliberately.
Let's take II Timothy 3:16 apart. The sentence consists of one subject, "scripture", modified by the adjective "all"; two verbs substantive, "is", with two predicative adjectives, "God-breathed" and "profitable", connected by the conjunction "and"; four prepositional phrases beginning with "for"; and one prepositional phrase beginning with "in".
The prepositional phrase "in righteousness" is used as an adjective modifying "instruction". In the Greek the preposition is "en" with a dative object, meaning "by the instrument of", or the way we would understand "with" in the sentence, "I stir the batter with a spoon". Instruction which is "with", or "by the instrument of", or "by means of" righteousness.
If we distribute the subject, the second verb substantive and the second predicative adjective to the four "for" prepositional phrases, which is a grammatically valid thing to do, we get:
"All scripture is profitable for doctrine, all scripture is profitable for reproof, all scripture is profitable for correction, all scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness."
II Timothy 3:16 says that all scripture is profitable for *four* things. Why did Wierwille reduce that number to three?
When VPW taught that Romans, Ephesians and Thessalonians were profitable for doctrine; Corinthians and Philippians for reproof; and Galatians and Colossians for correction, he was plagiarizing an idea Bullinger set forth in his "Companion Bible".
However, Bullinger reduced the number of things for which all scripture is profitable from four to three by saying that "doctrine" and "instruction in righteousness" mean the same thing. Wierwille couldn't teach this, because of what he taught in another place about "made", "formed" and "created" being absolutely different things because they were different words.
So, Wierwille took George Ricker Berry's translation, "for discipline which [is] in righteousness" , and shifted the "which is" from modifying "in righteousness" to modify "instruction".
In rendering his interpretation of II Timothy 3:16 Wierwille changed the number of things for which all scripture is profitable from four to three.
In teaching that some parts of Scripture are profitable for doctrine while other parts are profitable for reproof, and yet other parts are profitable for correction, Wierwille ignored the truth that the subject of II Timothy 3:16 is "all scripture". If a scripture is God-breathed, then it is automatically profitable for all four things.
Wierwille changed the meaning of "for instruction in righteousness" by shifting, or if you like, by adding, words to the Word.
The fact that Wierwille plagiarized Bullinger's teaching only in part, and plagiarized/twisted Berry's translation for the rest, in order not to contradict his own writings, shows that Wierwille's error was deliberate.
I think this is an actual error in PFAL, not just an error of interpretation, and it's an error where we can follow Wierwille's thinking in its fabrication.
Yes, I have flown. My dad was an aeronautical engineer, and I studied Physics.
I'm very familiar with the calculations there, BUT I think my trust in airplanes comes from sitting at the end of Lindberg Field here and watching hundreds of planes take off and land over the course of many years! This activity is a constant thrill for me, and seeing the presciion and the saftey record (one big accident in 70 years here) under these circumstances far outweighs the calculations I am also aware of.
This heart activity of watching and loving is where I get the guts feel that airplanes are safe and worthy of my risking it all.
I spent six years in the nuclear Navy, messing around with reactors and radioactive stuff. Invisible stuff that could kill us. We had two manuals, each about four or five inches thick. Everything we did, we were required to do "in verbatim compliance with posted procedure", because we were dealing with invisible, deadly, counter-intuitive things (sort of like spirits in many ways). That's where I learned hermaneutics, long before I was exposed to PFAL.
My wife has been diagnosed with bipolar mood disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, and a little bit of obsessive compulsive disorder. Much of my daily routine is concerned with monitoring and preventing her from acting on her "gut feelings".
I'll take good calculations over gut feelings any day of the week.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
208
62
95
53
Popular Days
Jan 3
56
Jan 28
53
Jan 17
52
Jan 27
46
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 208 posts
Jbarrax 62 posts
Zixar 95 posts
Mike 53 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2003
56 posts
Jan 28 2003
53 posts
Jan 17 2003
52 posts
Jan 27 2003
46 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Clear as the difference between all with a distinction and all without distinction. See, to those unaware of the circumstances that brought about this thread, I look like I'm nitpicking to prove Wier
Raf
I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether
Larry P2
And let's not forget the one about "All the women in the Kingdom belong to the King." Which proves that he was a lecherous piece of sh!t communicating his desire for a steady stream of young, gullibl
Steve Lortz
Rafael - In your post of Jan. 27, '03, 16:07, you wrote, "The Word is profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction." II Timothy 3:16 actually says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God [God-breathed], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
The Bible says that *all* scripture breathed by God is profitable for *four* things; doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness.
It's easy to see why you made this error, since Wierwille drilled into our heads "DOCTRINE, REPROOF, CORRECTION". How did VPW get rid of the fourth thing for which *all* God-breathed scripture is profitable? He retranslated II Timothy 3:16b as "...and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, which is instruction in righteousness."
Wierwille's reconstruction is not warrented by the Greek. The second half of II Timothy 3:16 in the King James Version is a perfectly adequate translation.
Wierwille read his meaning into the text by taking George Ricker Berry's translation and performing what troubledwine called a "word shift". Berry's translation is as follows:
"Every scripture [is] God-inspired and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for discipline which [is] in righteousness."
Wierwille transformed Berry's "for discipline which [is] in righteousness" into "which is instruction in righteousness".
Another actual error in PFAL. Thanks, Raf!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
It was so peaceful over on the "music" thread. I was grooving to the memories of Ted F and socks and posting my Bedtime CD Picks, really enjoying my escape from the Mike Wars.
I have liked the "Actual Errors" thread from the start...so logical...so rational...
:)-->
But it has turned into another Mike thread
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Oakspear - "Actual Errors in PFAL" has always been a part of the "Mike Saga".
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Rafael The Observant said:
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."
Well said! I never noticed that point. The only way VP's definition of "create" could apply to God putting spirit in Adam was if Adam preceded the angels and of course God himself. "Silly it becomes"
What is that, actual error number 15? Anybody keeping count?
Peace
JerryB
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
....!!!!
:(-->
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Mike said,
I corresponded briefly with Gerry when he first appeared on Waydale. I double checked his website just today. It does look like a fascinating read, but it also looks in skimming to solve the problem by cutting out James. That's why I asked Jerry to tell me plain.
Mike, it seems you want me to address how I deal with Bible contradictions based on my belief that PFAL if chock full of errors. That sounds like a fair question. But I don't want to be rude. You were here first and this thread was apparently started with you in mind. So I'll make a deal with you. You answer the 15 or so Actual Errors in PFAL that we've listed so far, to Rafael's satisfaction, and I'll tell you about how I deal with apparent contradictions in the Bible.
Peace
JerryB
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Okay people, I hate to seem like I'm hogging the forum. I considered myself done for the night, but I just read Mike's next post and I am...stunned.
Mr. Mike. You wrote,
I haven’t studied this out to know how exactly I’ve lined up my rough feel with what is written...
I’m not qualified right here and now to extract at once ALL the places where Dr uses that phrase and/or defines it.
My first response is, your blind acceptance of the perfection of something you haven't studied is dangerously naive. But it's actually worse than that. In the same post, you wrote...
Neither do any of you all NEED to have all these difficulties cleared up before accepting the challenge to come back to the pure written PFAL,...We’ve all only winged it, and I am reporting that there is an exciting adventure for those who check this out more carefully.
How do you justify "reporting" that there is an "exciting adventure for those who check this out more carefully" when, by your own admission, you haven't taken the time TO DO SO??
Do you know what the word "reporting" means? Do you not see the blatant HYPOCRISY in that invitation. How the he!! can you preach about an "exciting adventure" that results from something you claim you don't have the TIME or INCLINATION to do?
I am truly aghast Mike.
And one more thing. You should know that the people you're contending with on this thread HAVE TAKEN THE TIME to check this thing out VERY carefully, and we are "reporting" to you that it's full o holes.
When you finally get around to practicing what you preach, you'll find something much less than an exciting adventure.
Wake up dude!
JerryB
[This message was edited by Jbarrax on January 27, 2003 at 19:56.]
[This message was edited by Jbarrax on January 27, 2003 at 19:59.]
Man, this HTML stuff is a p.i.t.a.! :-)
[This message was edited by Jbarrax on January 27, 2003 at 20:03.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Hi Jerry:
How is everything bro? Yea, I hear you Jerry. Actually though, some of us like Mike because he is a text book example of PFAL, when taken to idolatrous extremes, is very harmful. All we have to do now is point Wierwille Apologists in the direction of Mike's posts and say "this is where PFAL worship can lead you." They get one wiff of Mike's act and straighten up very quickly. Much quicker than by your or my persuasion alone.
Thanks Mike. We greatly appreciate your input on Grease Spot Cafe. However, a few people actually take you seriously and are worried about your sanity. For there sake will you please occasionally write something intelligent. You know something that you have not read from one of Vic's books.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Yea, Troubledwine Rocks. He is an excellent bible student. One of the very best that I have seen on Grease Spot Cafe. It has been a long day for me at my business. It is now my nappy nap time. I better go and locate my bankie.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Rafael:
I was being a bit of a wise-guy, but I really do hate to see a thread that has, for the most part, been sane and logical, get derailed by illogical ramblings.
The participants in this thread have generally refrained from Wierwille bashing; the focus on the facts, rather than opinion or interpretation has been invaluable.
Might I suggest not letting Mike derail this thread by not engaging him in pseudo-debate over his "ideas".
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This thread has three basic premises.
1. That there are actual errors (not due to interpretation or "translation," middlement, proofreaders, etc.) in the PFAL book and Wierwille's other writings.
2. That those errors disqualify PFAL from its own definition of what it means to be "God-breathed."
3. That anyone who considers PFAL to BE God-breathed has to either explain the actual errors (ie, make them fit) or abandon PFAL's definition OF God-breathed in order to maintain that position.
Most of us would take 1 and 2 as self-evident, and this thread would not be as necessary (although Jerry proved years ago that it could be tons of fun).
But for those addressed in the third premise, the challenge could not be more grave. For if you cannot EXPLAIN the actual errors (and I contend you could not even if you tried), then you MUST admit VPW was wrong about "God-breathed" or abandon your position that PFAL IS God-breathed.
You may, as Mike did, choose to ignore the challenge. I never did a google search on Bible contradictions, as Mike suggested. Why not? Because I choose not to take the critics up on the challenge.
The difference between me and Mike is, I don't go to the other Web sites and tell them how wrong they are while refusing to address ANY of the contradictions they pose. I don't go there and ask them to explain how they approach difficulties in the theory of evolution to entrap them in an inconsistency. If I make the claim that the Bible has no errors or contradictions, then it is my job to address the errors and contradictions that are brought up. If I'm not going to do that (put up), then I will remain off their boards and silent (shut up).
I don't go there and tell them they are lousy researchers or unwilling to listen, without giving them any answers they seek. That's rude. And I'm not talking about "yo mama" rude. I'm talking about dishonest-and-disingenuous-debating-designed-to-cause-confusion-while-failing-to-address-the-very-purpose-of-this-discussion rude.
Which brings me back to the point:
Any discussion that fits into one of the three premises above should be considered on-topic.
Identifying actual errors is on-topic.
Challenging a posed "actual error" is on-topic.
Resolving an error is on-topic.
Explaining how you identify, challenge or resolve an error is on-topic.
The clever thing Mike tried to do yesterday was establish for US a consistency he demands of himself. That was getting us off-topic, and it explains my harshness yesterday.
Calling on us to apply the same principles to PFAL as we apply to the Bible assumes we all have the same principles in how to resolve errors in the Bible. We do not. Some of us try very hard to resolve difficulties in the Bible.
Some of us happily accept their existence as evidence that God worked with men. That discussion is fascinating, but it's not the subject of this thread. If we were to engage in that discussion, then the thread would simply be derailed.
Now, if Mike wants to attempt to re-define Wierwille's definition of God-breathed, I'm all ears. But I think we're all well aware that Wierwille did not allow for a view of the Word of God that allowed it to contradict itself.
What galls me about Mike, and I've said this repeatedly, is that he comes onto these threads declaring to all the world that he will NOT consider any viewpoint that shakes him from the belief that PFAL is God-breathed, then considers US "unfit researchers" who "don't WANT to see it fit." In other words, the man who has declared his mind closed for business accuses us of having closed minds. That's hypocrisy, and I'm tired of arguing with it.
On the other hand, you've got to appreciate a thread that brings back Karl Kahler AND Jerry Barrax.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
troubledwine
Just a quick thought why this image idea is still fresh.
I wanted to elaborate on this idea a little bit. This is a section where God is giving instruction to Noah after the flood.
Now if the image of God is just the spirit of God in a believing man (as Wierwille teaches in PFAL) then are we to interpret this verse as saying that God does not want us to murder people with the spirit but go ahead and murder freely those without the spirit?
But again, if the image of God is a much larger concept than just the spirit, then it would tie into the many clear verses. Thou shalt not murder immediately coming to mind.
The context supports this larger concept idea as well because this is God laying the foundational precepts for the eight souls that stepped off the ark.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Actually, if you think about it a bit, some of these errors go away as soon as you don't require PFAL to be God-breathed any more.
Let's face it, there are some extremely intelligent people here who sat through PFAL many times and we didn't exactly jump up and smash the tv set when "God can only communicate with what He is..." came over the tape. Heck, I caught the "blood in the sperm" goof the first time I sat through it, but I let it go because I knew what he was trying to say.
PFAL is incomplete and inconsistent; therefore, it doesn't even have Gödel's Theorem to give it an "out"--either one automatically means that there are truths that cannot be derived or explained through it. Mike is the only individual I've seen who requires that PFAL be as infallible as the Word of God. Yet, he has already eliminated the entire Advanced Class on Power For Abundant Living as necessarily-true, ostensibly because VPW didn't mention it in his last teaching, but actually because in it Doctor said that all cancer was devil spirits, and VPW died from the disease, making him, by his own definition, possessed. Since this is unacceptable to Mike's belief system, he ignores it because he cannot refute it. Very convenient.
When PFAL was just a class by a man, we understood it to be the work of a man. We didn't require it to be perfect. But, as this thread shows, the more perfection we demand of it, the more it utterly fails to be perfect.
One last thing. It cannot be the fault of proofreaders or printers. If God gave PFAL to VPW by God-breathing it to him, and the final print version was printed before VPW died, then God certainly would have revealed to Wierwille any proofreading problems or printer errors before His Epistle to TWI was distributed. It wasn't corrupted after VPW's death. The Orange Book is, for all it's worth, "it". No amount of study will correct the errors--only releasing one's self from believing it to be the direct revelation of God can enable one to discern whatever good and notable truths lie within.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
When I first took PFAL, I caught a few of the errors that have been posted in this thread, but didn't go nuts about them, because I fuly expected that the class would be the fallible work of a fallible man. Some of the things, like "God can only give or speak to what he is", I did not understand, but didn't stress out about it because I was willing to carry on without understanding everything!
The problem that I saw was how people, leadership and non-, often took what he said as above question. Even ideas that you could prove were wrong were brushed off if VP said it. His words were quoted as if they were scripture. Mike is not as unique as we think he is.
During my last year "in", I had a heated exchange with my HFC in his kitchen about "Jew and Judean". He was holding forth to the twiggies about how Yiddish was really Khazaric written in Hebrew characters which proved that modern-day Jews were really Khazars when I corrected him. He tried to brush me off, but I pressed the issue until I had to forcefully say "Doctor Wierwille was WRONG!" You could have heard a pin drop in that kitchen.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I had a similar experience based on the Luke 2 discussion above. My fellowship coordinator was leading us through the Home Studies, and we got to the question about Jesus going to Jerusalem to go through bar-mitzvah, and I challenged him on it.
Funny thing was, this was taking place AFTER we had all left TWI. Still, it was VERY difficult to get him to agree that The Way was wrong about Jesus going through bar-mitzvah, that the verse in question had nothing to do with bar-mitzvah, and that an unnamed "old piece of literature" was not an acceptable standard for basing our understanding of the Bible.
I think a great many people in TWI were always willing to SAY that Wierwille wasn't perfect and that he could make mistakes. But egads, to actually point one out would have caused a riot!
From there to here.
And Zix, I must say, that was one excellent post. Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Don't thank me till you see the bill...
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Dear All,
I'm working today and am missing out on many post responses I'd love to make. Maybe some I'll get to tomorrow, but this one from Oakspear I can answer quickly now.
Oakspear wrote:
>When I first took PFAL, I caught a few of the errors that have been posted in
>this thread, but didn't go nuts about them, because I fuly expected that the
>class would be the fallible work of a fallible man.
>
Ditto with me. I also thought that some of what I spotted as errors may be me simply overlooking something. I figured that in time I'd know more and some would clear up. I was right on this, but some still do linger also.
>Some of the things, like "God can only give or speak to what he is", I did
>not understand, but didn't stress out about it because I was willing to carry
>on without understanding everything!
>
Very similar reaction went on in me. For this particular item, in recent years, I have come to regard it as a revelation to Dr, NOT an extraction from the received texts. I now see how it fits VERY well with the existant texts.
>The problem that I saw was how people, leadership and non-, often took what
>he said as above question. Even ideas that you could prove were wrong were
>brushed off if VP said it. His words were quoted as if they were scripture.
>Mike is not as unique as we think he is.
>
Thank you for documenting this. I too noticed many flocking to canonize all that Dr said in the early Seventies. I totally resisted this, sometimes with a passion. I thought it a rush to judgement on the part of these immature grads.
I maintainded this stance for 27 years. Only after this long time, and MANY learning incidents, and a slowly but steadily developing relationship with my heavelly Father... ONLY AFTER ALL THIS have I recently decided it's finally time to commit to PFAL.
It wasn't formal proofs and totally spelled out logic that got me to make this decision. Nobody bets their life on mere intellectual calculations. It's a heart thing mostly, that needs as much calculating as possible for a foundation, but it's mostly a heartfelt guts feel that will motivate one to risk all. (This part is addressed to one of Gerry's posts too.)
So, you're right in saying "Mike is not as unique as we think he is."
There were LOTS of people respecting Dr this way back then, SOME going way overboard. I resisted this, but eventually decided to really believe in Dr's ministry after a long detailed survey of the material and its applications. It took me 11 years of pondering before I went out WOW! Many to most of those early, fast believers in "God's hand on Dr" did NOT do as complete a survey, and when the storms came they got talked out of it. Because of my survey and applications I got talked INTO it IN SPITE OF THE STORMS! I believe as others see the data I've seen more grads will COME BACK to God's Word in PFAL.
Agape,
Mike
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Never flown on an airplane?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
troubledwine
Dear Mike,
I am sorry everyone but I just have to say...
Please just come out and say that PFAL is the "new" "last revelation" "forgotten epistles" or something like Joseph Smith did and all the rest.
You can summarize your complete position in this one sentence "God wrote PFAL therefore it cannot be wrong or contradictory and supercedes all previous written revelation even if at cross purposes with what has already been revealed."
Well, I for one am not going to commit to PFAL. I believe that Dr Wierwille was wrong to challenge people to master the collaterals. It's arrogant. Why would I want to MASTER writings that are trying to explain the Bible? The point of the collaterals is to help me understand the Word not replace the Word. I would rather MASTER the Bible not a set of loosely written materials that tend to be under researched , over plagiarized, and misdirected.
It appears, that you will never know subjects not written in the collaterals. You will never know about the spiritual significance of the sacrifices, the temple etc... because THEY AREN'T IN THE COLLATERALS.
ATTENTION EVERYONE!!! I HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT!!! THE REASON MIKE CANNOT PUT UP A DEFENSE FOR ANY OF THE ACTUAL ERRORS WE ARE DISCUSSING IS BECAUSE HE DOES NOT ACTUALLY READ THE BIBLE.
You are firing an empty gun Mike. Or blanks at best. I have been waiting for you to post one good explanation and (yawn) you bore me. You would at least be entertaining if you offered your own blend of shoot from the hip, charisma filled TEACHER spooge with some Bible verses. Have you ever even quoted a verse? We don't even get that from you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Rafael - Regarding whether or not Wierwille's treatment of II Timothy 3:16 was an actual error or an error of interpretation you wrote, "If you'd care to make a more detailed argument, I'm all ears." I intend to take you up on your invitation, but the level of detail in this particular examination of the question is only going to be mid-range.
Two of the things you indicated as being germane to this thread were showing that PFAL contains actual errors "not due to interpretation or 'translation', middlemen, proofreaders, etc.", and showing PFAL does not fit its own definition for being God-breathed.
Without going into detail of the actual Greek at this time, I am going to say that "All scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" is an acceptable translation of II Timothy 3:16. I could demonstrate why, but that would get into high-end detail pricing.
On page 81 of PFAL Wierwille presented *his* version of II Timothy 3:16, "All scripture *is* given by inspiration of God [God-breathed], and *is* profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [which is] instruction in righteousness."
Later on pages 81 and 82 Wierwille wrote, "...All Scripture is profitable in three areas: (1) doctrine... (2) reproof... (3) correction... All three of these are 'instruction in righteousness'".
According to PFAL the order of the words in the God-breathed Word must be perfect; and, if you add, subtract or change words, you no longer have the Word of God. The rest of this argument will show that Wierwille, in coming up with his version of II Timothy 3:16, disregarded the order of the words, added words, and changed the meanings of words. And... that he did it deliberately.
Let's take II Timothy 3:16 apart. The sentence consists of one subject, "scripture", modified by the adjective "all"; two verbs substantive, "is", with two predicative adjectives, "God-breathed" and "profitable", connected by the conjunction "and"; four prepositional phrases beginning with "for"; and one prepositional phrase beginning with "in".
The prepositional phrase "in righteousness" is used as an adjective modifying "instruction". In the Greek the preposition is "en" with a dative object, meaning "by the instrument of", or the way we would understand "with" in the sentence, "I stir the batter with a spoon". Instruction which is "with", or "by the instrument of", or "by means of" righteousness.
If we distribute the subject, the second verb substantive and the second predicative adjective to the four "for" prepositional phrases, which is a grammatically valid thing to do, we get:
"All scripture is profitable for doctrine, all scripture is profitable for reproof, all scripture is profitable for correction, all scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness."
II Timothy 3:16 says that all scripture is profitable for *four* things. Why did Wierwille reduce that number to three?
When VPW taught that Romans, Ephesians and Thessalonians were profitable for doctrine; Corinthians and Philippians for reproof; and Galatians and Colossians for correction, he was plagiarizing an idea Bullinger set forth in his "Companion Bible".
However, Bullinger reduced the number of things for which all scripture is profitable from four to three by saying that "doctrine" and "instruction in righteousness" mean the same thing. Wierwille couldn't teach this, because of what he taught in another place about "made", "formed" and "created" being absolutely different things because they were different words.
So, Wierwille took George Ricker Berry's translation, "for discipline which [is] in righteousness" , and shifted the "which is" from modifying "in righteousness" to modify "instruction".
In rendering his interpretation of II Timothy 3:16 Wierwille changed the number of things for which all scripture is profitable from four to three.
In teaching that some parts of Scripture are profitable for doctrine while other parts are profitable for reproof, and yet other parts are profitable for correction, Wierwille ignored the truth that the subject of II Timothy 3:16 is "all scripture". If a scripture is God-breathed, then it is automatically profitable for all four things.
Wierwille changed the meaning of "for instruction in righteousness" by shifting, or if you like, by adding, words to the Word.
The fact that Wierwille plagiarized Bullinger's teaching only in part, and plagiarized/twisted Berry's translation for the rest, in order not to contradict his own writings, shows that Wierwille's error was deliberate.
I think this is an actual error in PFAL, not just an error of interpretation, and it's an error where we can follow Wierwille's thinking in its fabrication.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Zixar,
Yes, I have flown. My dad was an aeronautical engineer, and I studied Physics.
I'm very familiar with the calculations there, BUT I think my trust in airplanes comes from sitting at the end of Lindberg Field here and watching hundreds of planes take off and land over the course of many years! This activity is a constant thrill for me, and seeing the presciion and the saftey record (one big accident in 70 years here) under these circumstances far outweighs the calculations I am also aware of.
This heart activity of watching and loving is where I get the guts feel that airplanes are safe and worthy of my risking it all.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
All right, then another direct question:
Just what is it exactly that you hope to learn from "committing" yourself to PFAL that was not already directly presented in the first place?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I spent six years in the nuclear Navy, messing around with reactors and radioactive stuff. Invisible stuff that could kill us. We had two manuals, each about four or five inches thick. Everything we did, we were required to do "in verbatim compliance with posted procedure", because we were dealing with invisible, deadly, counter-intuitive things (sort of like spirits in many ways). That's where I learned hermaneutics, long before I was exposed to PFAL.
My wife has been diagnosed with bipolar mood disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, and a little bit of obsessive compulsive disorder. Much of my daily routine is concerned with monitoring and preventing her from acting on her "gut feelings".
I'll take good calculations over gut feelings any day of the week.
Love,
Steve
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.