Actual Errors in PFAL

[oldiesman]

quote:

---

What he does not prove is that the Khazars are the sole descendents of the Askenazim. His theory that the Khazars migrated to eastern Europe to become the "cradle of eastern Jewry" is a supposition. Read his book and you'll see that he makes some logical and thought through projections of what could have happened, but doesn't prove it.

---

Oakspear,

Actually, on the front of Koestler's book he says they became the cradle of Western Jewry; but nonetheless if Rafael thinks it should be put on the list and he says there's DNA evidence supporting his conclusions, it's good enough for me.

[Raf]

I'll have to cite the DNA sources, lest I be just as guilty as Wierwille in relying on "an old piece of literature.

But one thing's for certain: Koestler said they formed the cradle of Western Jewry. Wierwille said MOST modern Jews are PREDOMINANTLY of Khazar descent. In order for Wierwille to be right, at LEAST 26% of Jews would have to be of Khazar descent.

The fact is, the vast majority of Jews, western or eastern, share genetic characteristics suggesting a common origin. They're the same stock.

That's my claim. It's not proof. I'm convinced of its truth and when I have time, I'll put up. For now, I'll shut up.

For a head start (while you're waiting for me to "put up,") check out the customer reviews of The Thirteenth Tribe on Amazon.com.

Edited January 31, 2003 by Guest

[Zixar]

Rafael: 26%? How does that confer predominance?

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations." - Patrick Henry

[Raf]

Some New York Times abstracts...

In DNA, New Clues to Jewish Roots

By NICHOLAS WADE (NYT) 1581 words

Late Edition - Final , Section F , Page 1 , Column 1

ABSTRACT - New study of DNA data conducted by Drs David Goldstein, Mark Thomas and Neil Bradman of University College in London shows that women in nine Jewish communities from Georgia, former Soviet republic, to Morocco have vastly different genetic histories than men; earlier study led by Dr Michael Hammer of University of Arizona showed that Jewish men from seven communities were related to one another and to present-day Palestinian and Syrian populations, but not to men of their host communities; finding suggests that most Jewish communities were formed by unions between Jewish men and local women; map (M) A new thread is being woven into the complex tapestry of Jewish history, a thread fashioned from a double twist of DNA.

The DNA data suggest a particular version of Jewish history and origins that historians have not yet had time to appraise but that seem to be reconcilable in principle with the historical record, according to experts in Jewish studies.

--------

Y Chromosome Bears Witness to Story of the Jewish Diaspora

By NICHOLAS WADE

With a new technique based on the male or Y chromosome, biologists have traced the diaspora of Jewish populations from the dispersals that began in 586 B.C. to the modern communities of Europe and the Middle East.

The analysis provides genetic witness that these communities have, to a remarkable extent, retained their biological identity separate from their host populations, evidence of relatively little intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries.

Another finding, paradoxical but unsurprising, is that by the yardstick of the Y chromosome, the world's Jewish communities closely resemble not only each other but also Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese, suggesting that all are descended from a common ancestral population that inhabited the Middle East some four thousand years ago.

Dr. Lawrence H. Schiffman, chairman of the department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University, said the study fit with historical evidence that Jews originated in the Near East and with biblical evidence suggesting that there were a variety of families and types in the original population.

He said the finding would cause ''a lot of discussion of the relationship of scientific evidence to the manner in which we evaluate long-held academic and personal religious positions,'' like the question of who is a Jew.

The study, reported in today's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was conducted by Dr. Michael F. Hammer of the University of Arizona with colleagues in the United States, Italy, Israel, England and South Africa. The results accord with Jewish history and tradition and refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism.

The analysis by Dr. Hammer and colleagues is based on the Y chromosome, which is passed unchanged from father to son. Early in human evolution, all but one of the Y chromosomes were lost as their owners had no children or only daughters, so that all Y chromosomes today are descended from that of a single genetic Adam who is estimated to have lived about 140,000 years ago.

In principle, all men should therefore carry the identical sequence of DNA letters on their Y chromosomes, but in fact occasional misspellings have occurred, and because each misspelling is then repeated in subsequent generations, the branching lineages of errors form a family tree rooted in the original Adam.

These variant spellings are in DNA that is not involved in the genes and therefore has no effect on the body. But the type and abundance of the lineages in each population serve as genetic signature by which to compare different populations.

Based on these variations, Dr. Hammer identified 19 variations in the Y chromosome family tree. The ancestral Middle East population from which both Arabs and Jews are descended was a mixture of men from eight of these lineages.

Among major contributors to the ancestral Arab-Jewish population were men who carried what Dr. Hammer calls the ''Med'' lineage. This Y chromosome is found all round the Mediterranean and in Europe and may have been spread by the Neolithic inventors of agriculture or perhaps by the voyages of sea-going people like the Phoenicians.

Another lineage common in the ancestral Arab-Jewish gene pool is found among today's Ethiopians and may have reached the Middle East by men who traveled down the Nile. But present-day Ethiopian Jews lack some of the other lineages found in Jewish communities, and overall are more like non-Jewish Ethiopians than other Jewish populations, at least in terms of their Y chromosome lineage pattern.

The ancestral pattern of lineages is recognizable in today's Arab and Jewish populations, but is distinct from that of European populations and both groups differ widely from sub-Saharan Africans.

Each Arab and Jewish community has its own flavor of the ancestral pattern, reflecting their different genetic histories. Roman Jews have a pattern quite similar to that of Ashkenazis, the Jewish community of Eastern Europe. Dr. Hammer said the finding accorded with the hypothesis that Roman Jews were the ancestors of the Ashkenazis.

Despite the Ashkenazi Jews' long residence in Europe, their Y signature has remained distinct from that of non-Jewish Europeans.

On the assumption that there have been 80 generations since the founding of the Ashkenazi population, Dr. Hammer and colleagues calculate that the rate of genetic admixture with Europeans has been less than half a percent per generation.

Jewish law tracing back almost 2,000 years states that Jewish affiliation is determined by maternal ancestry, so the Y chromosome study addresses the question of how much non-Jewish men may have contributed to Jewish genetic diversity. Dr. Hammer was surprised to find how little that contribution was.

''It could be that wherever Jews were, they were very much isolated,'' he said. The close genetic affinity between Jews and Arabs, at least by the Y chromosome yardstick, is reflected in the Genesis account of how Abraham fathered Ishmael by his wife's maid Hagar and, when Sarah was then able to conceive, Isaac. Although Muslims have a different version of the story, they regard Abraham and Ishmael, or Ismail, as patriarchs just as Jews do Abraham and Isaac.

LInk to the original article.

[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 31, 2003 at 12:49.]

Edited January 31, 2003 by Guest

[Raf]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zixar:

Rafael: 26%? How does that confer predominance?

---

I KNEW you would ask!!!!

Wierwille writes that MOST Jews (51%) are PREDOMINANTLY Khazar (51%). So I calculate that just over half of half the population has to be of Khazar descent.

0.51 x 0.51 = 0.2601, or 26%.

Giving Wierwille every benefit of the doubt, that's the number I came up with. Actually, if I were to be REAL generous, I would drop it to 25% (since 50% + 1 would still, statistically, round off to 50%). But the point is, I found a way for only a quarter of Jews to meet Wierwille's definition and still not count this as an actual error. Wierwille's history lesson does not meet that threshold. It's anti-Semitic drivel.

By the way, I used to believe this crap and teach it, so I want to apologize for ever passing it along as truth.

The Living Epistles Society

[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 31, 2003 at 12:58.]

Edited January 31, 2003 by Guest

[Steve Lortz]

Rafael - I understand your purpose for starting this thread, and agree with your assessment of my particular contributions.

I think Wierwille both preached and taught as he presented PFAL. I think he preached some profoundly right things. When people took those things to heart and turned to God through Jesus Christ, I think we got some tremendously powerful results... from *God*!

At the same time, I think Wierwille taught some profoundly erroneous doctrines. As I "renewed my mind" to the doctrine of PFAL, my heart was gradually turned away from God. Only God's mercy and grace have preserved me from reaping the full harvest of the errors I cultivated.

I think I'm going to take about a week off from this in order to rest and regroup, then start a thread or two in the doctrine section. I'm looking forward to putting my head together with troubledwine to compare notes on some of the things we're thinking.

Love,

Steve

Edited January 31, 2003 by Guest

[Zixar]

Rafael: But his statement could also be construed as "Most Jews have > 50% Khazar ancestry", too. In other words, a modern Jew with 3 Khazar grandparents and 1 Sephardic grandparent would be predominantly (75%) Khazar.

If that's the case, you're double-counting some of them.

Zix

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations." - Patrick Henry

[Raf]

Steve:

Karl Kahler suggested several companion threads to this one. "Probable errors in PFAL" and "Strange Doctrines of the Way." Each would be larger in scope. My contention is that neither of those threads would result in a consensus, whereas this one would. That's why I didn't start the others.

But such threads would be totally in keeping with the spirit of Jerry's PFAL review and my old Blue Book review (and the late lamented Green Book review, which died young).

........................................

We now pause for a lighthearted derailment.

ZIX!!!

I thought my method of counting allowed for the least amount of double counting. My way, 26% of Jews would have to have SOME Khazar ancestry. Your way, 50% + 1 Jews have to have 50% + 1 Khazar ancestry. Yours is truer to what Wierwille said, mine is just giving him as much benefit of the doubt as I can without saying he's outright wrong.

By the way, he's outright wrong.

..................

Now, back to our program.

I made some fixes on the page, but haven't added anything to it.

Updated Page

[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 31, 2003 at 13:36.]

Edited January 31, 2003 by Guest

[Zixar]

Rafael: Ever seen this joke?

quote:

---

So you want a day off

So you want a day off? Let's take a look at what you are asking for!

There are 365 days this year.

There are 52 weeks per year in which you already have 2 days off per week, leaving 261 days available for work.

Since you spend 16 hours each day away from work, you have used up 170 days, leaving only 91 days available.

You spend 30 minutes each day on coffee break. That accounts for 23 days each year, leaving only 68 days available.

With a one hour lunch period each day, you have used up another 46 days, leaving only 22 days available for work.

You normally spend 2 days per year on sick leave. This leaves you only 20 days available for work.

We are off for 5 holidays per year, so your available working time is down to 15 days.

We generously give you 14 days vacation per year which leaves only one day available for work and I'll be damned if you're going to take that day off!

---

Same diff.

Zix

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations." - Patrick Henry

[Jbarrax]

Man, this thread moves fast!!

Rafael, great job with the list. If you need help putting in colum format, I can help with that this weekend. I do some web publishing as part of my marketing duties at work.

Steve, I didn't see your post, but there's a wealth of great info there re: II Timothy 3:16. I agree that the doctrine, reproof, correction setup is a twisting of the Scripture, but I think I'd consider it an error of interpretation. By the way, I think the fourth aspect of the profit of the Word, "correction in righteousness" is a reference to judgment. I wrote a lengthy post about it before. If I can find it, I'll dredge it and send it to you.

Troubledwine said:

quote:

---

I would like to put forward the idea that the Gospels are the transition books that most fundamentally teach HOW to get your mind from the letter of the law to the intent / spirit behind the law - namely walking in the love of God. We know that Jesus Christ came to fufill the law It seems pleroo does not just indicate to just keep those laws because the example of JC was so much more than just keeping but fulfilling to the utermost or pushing something to the limits of its capacity.

---

Wow! That's a terriffic concept. Never thought of it that way TW, but it makes a lot of sense, especially in light of the salutations in Luke and Acts. I'm gonna have to go back and re-read the Gospels.

Steve "Braveheart" Lortz said,

quote:

---

It makes me want to paint half my face blue, climb up on top of the PFAL rubble, turn my backside toward New Knoxville, bend over, flip my kilt up, and bellow "FREEEDOMMMM!!!!!"

---

:D--> :D--> :D--> :D--> :D--> :D--> Hilarious.

Okay, back to reading. I'm still back on page 11!!

Peace.

JerryB :)-->

Edited February 1, 2003 by Guest

[Jbarrax]

Fascinating post on the Jewish DNA Rafael. This is the first detailed refutation of Koestler's book I've read. I too, used to believe and teach that stuff. But Geez, that was,...what, hours ago.

Thanks for setting the record straight.

JerryB :P-->

Edited February 1, 2003 by Guest

[Jbarrax]

Hey Rafael, here's the more detailed explanation of PFAL's erroneous definition of allos and heteros. As you recall, VP said that one of the reasons there had to be four men crucified with Jesus is because of the use of the Greek words allos and heteros in Luke and John. For convenience and efficiency's sake, this is lifted from ye olde PFAL Review threads.

We were taught over and over that Greek is a very precise language, and VP repeatedly claimed that the Greek words used were perfect in their semantic accuracy. This, as I've noted in the review of the PFAL teaching on pros and apistia is false. His definition of pros only applies to about 16 uses out of over 400. The truth is Greek words are not used with the kind of precision or consistency that lends itself to VP's exact definitions and the doctrinal edifices he built on them.

Another example is found in his treatment of heteros and allos, building blocks of the "four crucified" teaching. Now there may or may not have been four people crucified with Christ. I don't care one way or the other anymore. My point here is that the specific definitions of the Greek words involved are incorrect because of their oversimplification. On page 167 of Power for Abundant Living, we read,

quote:

---

There are two different words translated "other" in John 19 and Luke 23. One word is heteros, and the other word is allos. Both heteros and allos are translated "other", but heteros means "other when only two may be invovled." while allos means "other, when more than two may be involved. The word "other" in John 19:32 is allos

---

Oh really? Well then it should be obvious which words are used in the following verses. One is allosand the other heteros. Guess which is which.

quote:

---

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.

---

According to VP's definitions, we would guess that the first "other" is heteros because a man only has two cheeks and that the second is allos because there may have been more than two other cities involved. And we would be dead wrong.

The verses are Matthew 5:39, in which allos is used of the other cheek, and Luke 4:43, in which heteros is used referring to "other cities". Of course there are verses in which these words are used according to VP's definition, but the fact that they seem to be interchangeable in the whole of the New Testament defuses the claim the the "sharp accuracy" of God's Word demanded that heteros be used in Luke 23:32 and allos in John 19:32. Of the 94 uses of heteros in the NT, only about 20% of them fit Weirwille's definition. That's not very sharp accuracy.

Peace

JerryB

[Raf]

Well, that pretty well nails it, eh?

I'll post it right away.

Edited February 1, 2003 by Guest

[Raf]

It's up.

We are now at 29 actual errors in PFAL. And I still haven't gotten to "faith v. believing" which will make 30.

[Jbarrax]

Dont' hurry, you've got a weekend to get to. As for me, I'm going to post one more AE and then get back to Wing Commander IV. :D-->

We've talked about the error in II Peter 1:20 regarding "private interpretation". A closely related error was Dr. Weirwille's handling of II Timoth 2:15, specifically the corrupt and dishonest doctrine about "the only way to stand approved before God". Not only is this an actual error, imho, but it's a particularly obnoxious one because it helped build the idea that true righteousness and Christian maturity could only be found in detail obssessed Bible study. Jesus' message was that love is paramount and faith runs a close second. VP dismissed those in favor of Biblically accuracy and in doing so, ridiculed our Christian brethren and furthered the notion that we were smarter, better, and more enlightened than those silly Church people.

VP's assertion that the only way to stand approved before God is to rightly divide the scriptures is an unsupported leap of logic. Just because Timothy was told to do stand approved before God by rightly dividing the scriptures doesn't mean there's no other way to do so. Paul's exhortation to Timothy is in the context of a Church in which error is running rampant and overthrowing people's faith (2:18) . Does every believer share this responsibility?

The word "approved" is used elsewhere and sheds light on this question. VP made reference to the second of those uses, (Romans 16:10), but skips the first one. Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, what he said about the second occurence contradicts what God's Word says in the first!

quote:

---

Power For Abundant Living, page 121

Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus' household.

"It does not say that he was approved in the community or by the society or in the denomination, but he was approved in or of Christ."

---

Dr. Weirwille's unmistakable implication is that we are not expected to stand approved before men. This is a direct contradiction of Romans 14:18. First, let's note the context. It will be important in a moment. Verses 4, 10, and 13 all tell us not to judge one another. Verses 14 & 15 teach us not to offend our brethren with our liberties. These are the "things" referred to in verse 18.

quote:

---

14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

---

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that if you're acceptable to God, you stand approved of him. I can't imagine that one could be called "acceptable" unto God, yet not "stand approved" of him. So VP's assertion that the only way to stand approved before God is wrong. Furthermore, he bypassed this verse so he could go on to the next one and contradict it with his comment about Apelles' not standing approved in the community. It clearly says that one who serves Christ in these things will not only be acceptable or approved of God, but of men also.

Why a Christian leader would seemingly go out of his way to imply that we aren't supposed to care about the community's assessment of us is troubling to say the least. This kind of teaching only furthered the Way belief that we were too spiritual to be concerned with stuffy, silly old

Church notions like eschewing boozing, illicit sex, and selfishness.

What is even more puzzling about this 'oversight' is that, in his assertion that the only way to stand approved before God was by rightly dividing the Scripture, VP quoted verse 12, saying "Every one shall give account of himself to God!" He swooped in, plucked a verse, then proceeded to ignore and contradict its context. What an amazing feat of biblical research.

Actual error # 31?

JerryB

Edited February 1, 2003 by Guest

[def59]

I love this thread, and if my points are a matter of interpretation to you so be it.

I believe Wierwille was more off that anyone here care's to admit.

Since I left the Way, I found PFAL to not stand up to the Word. So I see more "errors" than you. But that's not the point.

The point is that Wierwille needs to be discredited as the scam artist he was and I will never hold any position as Gospel. Call me the antiMike.

But even Satan uses the word to prove his points, so Wierwille might have gotten lucky once in awhile.

I have worked the word on the issue of Jesus' deity and it works for me. If you choose not to believe, that is your choice. It's free thread, right?

But I still find your posts fascinating. You say you are a journalist, if so what publication. I too am a journalist.

[Raf]

Def,

You're a good soul.

You and I can agree to disagree about any number of major doctrinal issues.

You claim that you see more errors than we do. I disagree. You see different errors. But some are a matter of interpretation of major doctrinal issues, and the purpose of this thread is NOT to discuss those issues. It's to discuss those errors about which there can be no room for disagreement.

I don't mean to invalidate the errors you pointed out (not here, anyway. :)--> ). The only thing I mean to do is separate out one type of error from another. I see all sorts of errors that I won't address here (like when Judas hanged himself, Abraham's attempt to sacrifice Isaac, and the meaning of "falling away"). But even those cause debates, and I'm not looking for debatable errors.

I'm looking for places where Wierwille writes that 2+2=5. I'm looking for places where Wierwille writes "Greek word B always means ABC," and then finding verses in which B clearly means DEF and G. Indisputable, unarguable errors. I think we have a pretty good list and I think you can contribute to it.

Earlier I told Steve that the kind of errors we're looking at are "appetizers." The kind of errors he was pointing out are the "main course." I submit the same is true of the ones you're pointing out (certainly the second one, if not the first).

The Living Epistles Society

[WordWolf]

I finally got up to the actual list.

Nice list.

I have the following comments on the list.

(Not corrections, more along the lines of

"ruminations".)

-I wish you had spent a line or 2 naming the

'droit de seigneur' (or however it's spelled),

since the concept frames his state of mind,

as spelled out in other threads. It's

especially when you consider people's statements

that the minister is equivalently "the king"

nowadays. A full discussion of this, of course,

would get hot & be a debate. However, I think a

few words on the concept itself need not be.

- For me, the easiest way to see the difference

between allos and heteros is in the first 10

verses of Galatians.

Paul marvelled that they had so soon moved to

"another"(heteros-a different) gospel,

"which is not another"(allo-another of the same).

If I remember correctly, vpw used both this and

the "made up" explanation (one means "other of

only two") in his books, but never tried to

explain why there are 2 meanings, or when to

use which meaning. That was just something I was

used to ignoring.

----------------------------------

BTW, Rafael, I distinctly do NOT remember you

EVER teaching anything from 'the 13th Tribe',

or referring to its contents in any way, at any

time in my presence. In fact, the only time I

ever heard you mention anything like that was

once when I specifically ASKED you about the

book (which I haven't read). Your response

indicated that you weren't directly saying it

was trash, however, it was obvious you were

not endorsing it, and were not confident of its

contents. You even shrugged at one point when I

asked you if its premise was correct.

Your response was in the same style as my

responses to any questions about the CF & S

class. (Slightly evasive, & obviously meant to

close discussion on the subject as fast as

possible.)

If you ever taught it when I wasn't looking,

or in the middle-to-late 90's, then I wouldn't

know, of course. (I suspect you only got MORE

skeptical by that time, not less.)

That reminds me....

once we've had a break,

does anyone want to pull out their CF & S

syllabus and add a few pages to this thread?

Imagine all the fun we could have! :)-->

But of course, I forgot.......

...you haven't REALLY read the collateral books

until you've read them in the original Klingon.

:)-->

This is WordWolf signing off and heading for

the tub. Alert Ted Koppel.

[Jbarrax]

quote:

---

...you haven't REALLY read the collateral books until you've read them in the original Klingon.

---

The Undiscovered Country!

:D--> :D--> :D--> :D--> :D--> I laughed so loud I almost woke my daughter upstairs!

JerryB

[oldiesman]

quote:

---

The point is that Wierwille needs to be discredited as the scam artist he was and I will never hold any position as Gospel. Call me the antiMike.

---

Def59,

Is the reason why you believe PFAL contained a multiplicity of errors because VPW was as you call him "a scam artist", or is it because of the actual content of PFAL?

Try to separate PFAL doctrine from the man Wierwille. This is what Rafael is doing, and I think its exceedingly admirable.

Edited February 1, 2003 by Guest

[Jbarrax]

AE #32?

This is similar to what Rafeal pointed out about VP's error in II Timothy 2:15. He said the phrase "rightly dividing" is translated from the Greek word orthotomounta when, in fact, the word used is orthotomeo.

In his teaching about the others crucified with Christ, VP says that the King James translators added the word "one" to the text to change the meaning from two others to four. Whether this doctrine is valid or not is a question of interpretation. But, in discussing John 19:18, on page 166 of Power For Abundant Living, he wrote...

quote:

---

Take out the commas and the word "one", and read the verse again. "Where they crucified him and two others with him on either side and Jesus in the midst." The same words, enteuthen kai enteuthen, are used in Revelation 22:2

In the midst of the street of it, and on either side

of the river...

Enteuthen kai enteuthen is translated "on either side." These are the same words as in the Gospels..."

---

Actually, these are not the same words. The words used in Revelation 22:2 are actually enteuthen kai ekeithen. This is an important distinction because it may shed light on the translation of John 19:18. The second word in Revelation is not enteuthen, but ekeithen, which means "thence". This of course begs the question, 'what does enteuthen mean? It means "hence" and is translated that way in Matthew 17:20, Luke 4:9, 13:31, 16:26, and John 2:16, 7:3, 14:31, 18:36, and James 4:1; every place it is used except John 19:18 and Revelation 22:2, it is translated "hence". Hence means from here. If Elaine Benes' favorite exclamation were written in King James english, it would be "Get thee hence!"

The phrase in Revelation 22:2 could be translated "hence and thence". There may be a Greek idiom that mandates that this verse and John 19:18 be tranlsated "one either side" rather than "hence and hence" in John and "hence and thence" in Revelation. Any input from the thread's resident Greek scholars here would be appreciated.

If there isn't such an idiom John 19:18 represents one of the challenges of translating from Greek to English, in which case the addition of the word "one" has nothing to do with adhering to tradition, as VP charged. If they had translated it, "Where they crucified him, and two other with him, hence and hence...", how the heck would we interpret it?

Peace

JerryB

Edited February 1, 2003 by Guest

[WordWolf]

Last time I looked this up, I sat with the

interlinear & lexicon for a bit, & concluded I

thought the best translation would be

"and two other with him on this side and on

THIS side". I'll look it over again later and

see if I end up with the same conclusion-it's

been over 10 years. :)-->

-------------------------

Jerry, I had to add that comment because of all

the good lines I'd already missed in the

thread. Plus, with someone asserting that the

orange book was "incorrectly translated"

(from ENGLISH to ENGLISH? HOW?), I was reminded

of General Chang's comment.

------------------------

BTW, if you really want it, Hamlet can now be

purchased "in the original Klingon". No, I'm

not posting a link-I don't want to see it again

myself. :)-->

Besides, if Hamlet was a Klingon, it would have

been over in Act 1. Hamlet hears from his

father, then in the next scene, Hamlet kills

Claudius. The end. :)-->

[troubledwine]

Isn't this a great thread? I just wanted to add another idea about the pleroo concept of taking something to the uttermost of its capacity.

It would be a fascinating study to contrast how Jesus Christ got to the intent behind the law BUT the religious leaders after Malachi corrupted away to the point where they wore book on the fingers and heads instead of keeping the word in their actions and heads / hearts. There are many such examples in the Gospels. The classic "strain out a gnat and swallow (gulp down whole) a camel" comes readily to mind.

I bring this up because of JBarrax insightful comments about standing approved before God. Dare I ask did Wierwille's teaching creep ever so close to this type of thinking / religion?

quote:

---

Why a Christian leader would seemingly go out of his way to imply that we aren't supposed to care about the community's assessment of us is troubling to say the least. This kind of teaching only furthered the Way belief that we were too spiritual to be concerned with stuffy, silly old

Church notions like eschewing boozing, illicit sex, and selfishness.

---

Edited February 1, 2003 by Guest

[Raf]

Jerry:

Your proposed error 31 strikes me as interpretational. Maybe I'm just sleepy.

Your proposed error 32 is on target.

WordWolf:

I didn't mean to say that I taught the Jew/Judean thing in a formal setting. I mean I used to teach it when "witnessing" to people. For some reason, it did come up: but that was probably due to my own arrogance and not to need. Earth. Hitler. 1938.

As for all the women in the kingdom belonging to the king, and how that relates to MOG status, I specifically stated that I didn't want to use this list to challenge Wierwille's motives.

Frankly, I think the leap from that statement to Wierwille's behavior is logically tenuous (that is, I don't think you can create a logical chain linking that belief to Wierwille's behavior). I don't know, as a matter of logical certainty, that there is such a link.

Which is not to say I don't believe the allegations against Wierwille. I do. I just don't know how they tie into this verse.

I suppose if this were to become a book, and each error a chapter, we could get into that.

But yikes.

----

Thank you for pointing out Galatians 1. I will include it in the explanation of heteros and allos.

----

[Steve Lortz]

My wife persuaded me to come in out of the cold and put my pants back on... but my face is *still* blue, though, OKAY!?! :-)

I'm taking this week off from engaging in the debate, but I'm continuing to follow the discussion. I'm thinking through how to approach some of the deeper errors, those too interpretational to suit Rafael's purposes on the thread.

One thing that occurs to me is that we could also compile a list of Wierwille's bogus teaching practices. Things like circular definitions, using words in certain ways before giving the definitions in order to make his definitions look more substantial than they actually are, building elaborate arguments and then presenting non-sequitur conclusions, cherry-picking verses, etc., etc., etc.

Just a thought. Back to hibernative rumination.

Love,

Steve