Mike actually had something interesting to say on another thread that actually applies more to this thread. I'm taking the liberty to transfer his statement here in order to keep the other thread from straying off topic.
quote:Rafael,
As to the standard that Dr gave us for the perfection of God's Word, I think it’s the case that as we master that topic, in all its locations, then you may have to modify the standard of perfection you think Dr gave us. I think you have some error in your understanding of Dr’s teaching on this standard.
There are still some more subtleties in what constitutes an error to get on the table. Here’s one: would you count ink splotches or grain in the paper that look like punctuation? I guess that you wouldn’t, because you do come off as reasonable in your approach to these matters. This is not a subtle question, but here is one: where do you draw the line on printers errors, typesetting, proofreading, and even the editorial processes between Dr and all his editorial staff?
Here is one anecdote I’ve always carried with me, but hasn’t reached post until now. I once heard Dr at a staff meeting commenting on errors that crept into the materials and the effort to catch them all before publication. He said (paraphrasing): “””If the Way International waited for things to be 100% perfect before publication we’d never print a single book.”""
The important thing here is the revelation from God, and us finally getting a spiritual understanding of it. What Dr was saying is that physical perfection of the 5-senses product is desirable, but not achievable. The Psalm talks about “words of earth” then later becoming perfect in what they convey: God’s pure Word where every word is pure. How do you get a word to go from earthy and imperfect to pure? God!
The important thing, the goal, is the spiritual understanding of the revelation, and the physical medium is wonderful, and as perfect AS IT NEEDS TO BE in order for us to get that spiritual understanding as we master it.
Yes, in SOME areas, one word out of place and the whole thing falls to pieces, but not all topics and words are so pivotal as pros in John 1:1. I’ve seen other places where Dr says that there are alternate renderings worth considering, and the exact rendering less crucial for the ultimate goal.
If your present understanding of Dr’s position on the perfection of the words is correct, then Dr would have to conclude that these other places have one and only one word in the perfect rendering.
I think you’re taking Dr too literally on this, and not seeing the overall truths he teaches here. It’s like the ants on the trees analogy presented by What The Hay on 4-7-03 in Drivel Court.
Language itself is not as exact as this supposed standard of Dr’s, and perfection in 5-senses understanding what is written may, even after study, elude us due to our language being slightly different from Dr’s. An idiosyncratic passage of his may look like a mistake in my language, and I may NEVER get the 5-senses understanding of this. However, if I apply all the principles I was taught, eventually I’ll have enough of a correlation on the “mistaken” topic to see correctly in my language what Dr was writing there in his. OR, it may be that I NEVER get a perfect 5-senses understanding of that one passage, but since I did all my homework in other areas (key #4 again, of the 16) God can tell me this in my newly forming spiritual understanding of the revelation, which is the ultimate goal.
quote:As to the standard that Dr gave us for the perfection of God's Word, I think it’s the case that as we master that topic, in all its locations, then you may have to modify the standard of perfection you think Dr gave us. I think you have some error in your understanding of Dr’s teaching on this standard.
Actually, no, this pretty much lines up with what Wierwille taught about the Bible. His reverence for the perfection of the book is well-known, and your attempt at historical revisionism here is, umm, amusing. But if it makes you happy, I will change the word "standard" to "threshold." Wierwille set a low threshold for what constitutes an actual error. Deal with it.
quote:There are still some more subtleties in what constitutes an error to get on the table. Here’s one: would you count ink splotches or grain in the paper that look like punctuation?
Straw man: show me an ink blotch that we've listed as an error.
quote:I guess that you wouldn’t, because you do come off as reasonable in your approach to these matters.
That makes one of us.
quote:This is not a subtle question, but here is one: where do you draw the line on printers errors, typesetting, proofreading, and even the editorial processes between Dr and all his editorial staff?
Straw man again: if you can establish that one of the errors we've actually pointed out is a printer's error, I'm open to that possibility. I'd say the same for a proofreader's error. But NOT to the editorial process between Wierwille and his editorial staff. That's just outright evasion on your part. If this was the work of God, then the editorial process was protected by Him. You can't have it both ways. Either it's an imperfect work due to the flaws of Wierwille and the editorial staff, or it's the undiluted Word of God. You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Fundamentally dishonest.
quote:Here is one anecdote I’ve always carried with me, but hasn’t reached post until now. I once heard Dr at a staff meeting commenting on errors that crept into the materials and the effort to catch them all before publication. He said (paraphrasing): “””If the Way International waited for things to be 100% perfect before publication we’d never print a single book.”""
I concur. None of the errors we've pointed out fits this description (okay, maybe one or two, but certainly not ALL). That makes your argument pure straw, man.
quote:The important thing here is the revelation from God, and us finally getting a spiritual understanding of it. What Dr was saying is that physical perfection of the 5-senses product is desirable, but not achievable.
FINE, THEN ADMIT AN ERROR IS AN ERROR. Once you get honest about that, which you have NOT been, we can move on to more substantive matters. But your patent lack of integrity in dealing with actual errors leads me to believe you are going to be JUST AS dishonest on weightier matters such as the law of believing, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven, the right-dividing of administrations (dispensations), the lordship of Jesus Christ and other, more crucial matters. I can't even get you to admit there IS a pronounceable name for God in the Old Testament, despite what Wierwille said about the subject. Why should I trust you on ANY OTHER more substantive issue?
quote:The important thing, the goal, is the spiritual understanding of the revelation, and the physical medium is wonderful, and as perfect AS IT NEEDS TO BE in order for us to get that spiritual understanding as we master it.
It remains my contention that Wierwille was wrong about FAR MORE than little things here and there. I've focused on "actual errors" solely for the purpose of having you admit that, yeah, Wierwille can have made mistakes. But unlike you, I believe those mistakes are errors, not just typos or ink blots.
quote:If your present understanding of Dr’s position on the perfection of the words is correct, then Dr would have to conclude that these other places have one and only one word in the perfect rendering.
Actually, that is Wierwille's position. It may not be PIVOTAL that we know which rendering is God-breathed, but only one rendering is.
quote:I think you’re taking Dr too literally on this...
Mike is accusing ME of taking Wierwille too literally. Mark your calendars, folks. I'm going to celebrate the anniversary of this date next year.
quote:and not seeing the overall truths he teaches here.
Bullsh.t. I think that's the kind of arrogance that led to the fall of TWI. One does not need to hold Wierwille's works to be God-breathed in order to appreciate that some of it had great value. One does not need to consider him some latter day prophet to recognize that there were times when he taught the Bible and, shudder, was right. Your "ants on the trees" analogy, borrowed from What the Hay, is an IGNORANT one, and really, is the fatal flaw in your whole thesis: your notion that one must accept all Wierwille taught as God-breathed or reject it all as raving lunacy is plain WRONG.
There were times when Wierwille taught on certain subjects that he was wrong: substantively, crucially wrong. There were other times when he was substantively, crucially right. On the importance of believing, he was right. On the "LAW" of believing, his communication was flawed. On the role of fear, he was often right. On the role of fear in the life of Job, he was dead wrong.
My relationship with God does not revolve around a pressing need to master the works of VPW. In fact, mastery of Wierwille's books not even on the list of things to do. All that is required of Wierwille is to do the same as you would any other preacher who claims God spoke to him: prove all things, hold fast to that which is good (a process which, by its very definition, requires us to identify that which is good, sift it out of that which is NOT good, and discard the bad).
That's how I "master" PFAL: by recognizing its flawed origin and nature but refusing to discard whatever good that came from its presentation.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on April 11, 2003 at 10:31.]
Oh, but Rafael! What you'd see if you really tried to master PFAL instead of being a young whippersnapper is that when Dr wrote that in the Word, he was just using a figure of speech. See? Now it all makes five-senses, um, sense, too.
The figure is called, in Latin, fabricatio in toto, or total fabrication. It is used when someone wants to express a false statement as true in order to use it as a basis to prove another false statement. According to the rules of relational logic, any material implication with a false antecedent trivially leads to a true conditional.
"If pigs fly, then Rafael is the true Queen of Luxembourg."
"If PFAL is the Word of God, then Wierwille was a true apostle."
Here is one more I almost forgot about. John 5:39 reads, Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life..." In PFAL, even in the book, Dr. removed "ye think." I heard several defenses to this. One from a Limb Leader who said "it is not in the Aramaic." Another said that since "ye think" did not apply to us, Dr. was justified in removing it. However, I never heard anything from the horses mouth. It is interesting that he would not touch this with a ten foot pole in a public forum. Think we have anything here, Rafael? Best Regards.
Sorry, I'm not with you on this one, Mr. H. In the book, Wierwille puts an ellipsis ("...") at the part where "ye think" should be, clearly indicating that he recognized those words are in the text. He skipped them because they were not central to his point.
Does removing the words "ye think" substantively change the meaning of the verse? Does the alteration improve or detract from the point he's making in the PFAL book?
My personal belief is that he could have left the words "ye think" in there without causing the confusion he apparently sought to avoid by omitting them. However, I am not prepared to call his editorial decision "an error." Not for the purposes of this forum.
I don't know if this will qualify in the final analysis as an Actual Error, but I think we have a clear example of 2+2=5 in the teachings from Jesus Christ is Not God and the "Christ in You" teaching from PFAL.
As part of his opposition to the Trinity, VP taught that since Jesus was a man when he was in his earthly ministry and Hebrews 13:8 says he is " Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. " Way dogma held that since Jesus was born a man Hebrews 13:8 means he could in no wise become God. Not even if you put him in Calvin's transmogrifier.
But in PFAL, Dr. said (several times) "It's Christ in you, Christ in you, Christ in you" and added that wherever you are, Christ is. This was presented in more detail in the Advanced Class as Christ being the literal inner man; Christ's eyes behind your eyes, his ears behind yours, etc.
So here's the problem. If Jesus Christ is a man and has to remain so, how can he be inside all of us at the same time. If VP was right in the Advanced Class, doesn't that mean Jesus Christ the man became Jesus Christ the spirit?
I'd like to look at that a little bit more, Jerry. If I'm reading you right, you're saying the following:
Wierwille used Hebrews 13:8 to prove something it does not prove. He drew conclusions based on that verse, but later contradicted those conclusions when they were inconvenient.
I'm not sure it's 2+2=5. It looks more like "The Square Root of X PLUS the Square Root of Y is equal to the Square Root of Z when X=4, Y=X and Z=25."
In other words, it may be an error, but it's going to take a little head scratching before I agree that it's not interpretational.
...I'm not sure it's 2+2=5. It looks more like "The Square Root of X PLUS the Square Root of Y is equal to the Square Root of Z when X=4, Y=X and Z=25."
Uh.....yeah.
But yes, you get the general idea. This is the same type of doctrinal conflict one runs into when comparing the PFAL teaching on the origin and fate of soul life. At one point, he says that soul life is passed on via the male sperm cells. Yet when he was explaining where the soul goes, he invoked the "law" that everything must return to its original source. (We know it's a law because DOCTOR said so). He claimed that because of this law, the body goes back to dust, the little-h-little-s holy spirit goes back to God who gave it, but the soul life...just goes away into thin air. You breathe your last breath and it's gone. But what about the LAW?? Why doesn't it go back to Daddy who gave it?
If everything must go back to God why didn't Herr DOCTOR teach that the soul life goes back to your Daddy's sperm cell? Or at least the origninal dwelling place thereof? :-)
Probably because that would be a blatantly absurd notion not even wild-eyed hippies would accept. So his doctrine on the mortality of the soul contradicts his statement that everything must go back to its source.
In other words, Where a=7 and b=10, a+b does not equal 17.
Either a does not equal 7; [soul life does not come from a sperm cell, but from God or some other source]
or b does not equal 10; [soul life doesn't evaporate into thin air, but rather goes back to God who gave it].
Or the whole thing is a mystery and will never make sense, no matter how you wrestle it.
Regarding "Christ In You": Martindale taught that "Christ In You" was figure of speech because he was a literal man who could only be in one place at one time; the figure referred to us having the abilities, etc. of Jesus Christ.
Don't know if Martindale's position accurately reflected Wierwille's teaching on this.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
He claimed that because of this law, the body goes back to dust, the little-h-little-s holy spirit goes back to God who gave it, but the soul life...just goes away into thin air. You breathe your last breath and it's gone. But what about the LAW?? Why doesn't it go back to Daddy who gave it?
To play Wierwille's advocate: Soul life was originally made in man when God blew into his nostrils the breath of life. Therefore, man blows soul life right back out at his last breath. Just as the soul had no independence or personality before God blew it into Adam, it has no independence or personality when man blows it back out. But God will restore it to us at the resurrection. The "law" then, remains intact.
Regardless of whether you accept the above explanation, it is sufficiently reasonable to keep this off the actual errors list (that, and the fact that I get to make up the rules as I go along, which I imagine must be getting a tad frustrating by now).
Wellllll, let's take another look at this soul thing, shall we?
Y'see here Ecclesiastes 12:6 & 7 say that when a fellow dies, the spirit goes back to God who gave it.
quote:6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Sounds like the Bible vindicates VP's law about everything going back to its source.
BUT
On page 235 of PFAL, DOCTOR wrote (by revelation of course)
quote:The modern church has been illogical on this particular
issue because it usually teaches that the soul is eternal life spirit and goes back to God; but then the teachers deny that a cow having a soul, life, must go back to God. If the soul came from God, it must Ultimately go back to God, just as the body of man must ultimately go back to dust. If what they teach is true, all animals must return to God.
There are two problems with this paragraph. The first is the assertion that the idea of the soul going back to God is not biblical. As we see above, Ecclesiastes 12:6&7 say exactly that.
The second error in this paragraph is VP's assertion that if one believes the soul goes back to God, he must also believe that the sould of animals do also. This too, contradicts the Bible. Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 indicate that both men and animals have soul life, but their destinations are diametrically opposed to each other.
quote:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
So let's summarize. VP says that the soul of a man either goes to his progeny or nowhere (PFAL, page 237, paragraph 5). VP says that if human souls go back to God, animals do too.
The Bible says that soul life goes back to God who gave it, but that animals' souls go down to the earth.
I say, Actual Error. What say ye, O Rafael, Keeper of the Thread?
Jerry - I think you and I both agree that this whole "body, soul, spirit" thing needs to be re-examined in detail. I still haven't studied it enough to make any definitive pronouncements, but I no longer believe what we were taught in PFAL.
It appears to me that Genesis 2:7 indicates "man = dust, dust + breath (spirit) = living soul" rather than "man = body + soul + spirit". Especially in light of Ezekiel 37:1-14, another place in the Word of God where the Lord animates human beings. Check out how the English translators used "wind" and "spirit" interchangably to translate "ruach".
Speaking of "ruach", check out its uses in the section of scripture you just quoted:
Ecclesiates 3:19 "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath ['ruach' = 'spirit']; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 "All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
21 "Who knoweth the spirit ['ruach' = 'spirit'] of man that goeth upward, and the spirit ['ruach' = 'spirit'] of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?"
First notice that this passage doesn't refer to "souls" at all. It's only about dust and spirit. It says men and animals are both made of dust, and both animated by the same spirit (they all have one 'ruach'... one 'spirit'). Furthermore, it says they both go to the same place.
The sentence "all go unto one place" is a declarative statement. Verse 21 is a question, "who knows that the spirit of a man goes up and the spirit of an anumal goes down?"
I think that people were erroneously teaching, at the time the Ecclesiast wrote, that the spirits of men went up while the spirits of animals went down. I think the sense of verse 21 is "So the spirits of men go up and the spirits of animals go down, do they? Oh, yeah? Sez who?"
Hi Steve, God bless! Good to see ya back in the fray.
I hate to be contentious, but I must point out a potentially important difference between the verse you quoted and the statement you made.
quote:Verse 21 is a question, "who knows that the spirit of a man goes up and the spirit of an anumal goes down?"
Um....that's not actually what the verse says. What the KJV says is, "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward..."
You changed the position of the article "that", effectively changing the object of the question from "Who knows the SPIRIT that goeth upward?" to "Who knows THAT the spirit goes upward?"
I don't have access to the original Hebrew texts to see where the article belongs, so I may be way off base. But I don't think the verse is questioning the assertion that the spirit of man goes upward, especially since elsewhere in Ecclesiastes (12:6&7) it says plainly that the spirit goes back to God who gave it. I think it is questioning the depth of our knowledge of spiritual matters, which is kind of the whole point of this discussion.
But I do agree with you that the soul is in the category of the spiritual realm,( as DOCTOR also asserted in this section of the class). And I agree that the PFAL teaching that Adam was body, soul, and spirit is not supported by Genesis. The reason for this doctrine, which is also taught by Kenneth Hagin & Co., is the apparent contradiction in the "thou shalt surely die" statement of Genesis 2:17 and the post-paradise longevity of Adam and Eve.
If you interpret Gen 2:17 literally, then God told Adam that if he ate fo the treeoftheknowledgeofgoodandevil he would die that very day. Even Smikeol knows they both lived for centuries after their transgression. VP and Hagin get around this by adding an element of life to Adam's original makeup so they can say it died on the day they sinned. In my humble opinion, these are the kinds of mind games one has to play in order to come up with an inerrant Bible.
Jerry - It's good to be back. I just had the worst case of bronchitis I've had since 1971. I was off work for a month. It *is* good to be back!
I can only make a few points, then the rest of my weekend is going to be taken up with family Easter activities. As I wrote earlier, I am still developing my line of thinking on this subject. I will be making catagorical statements for you guys to respond to, but I realize, and I want you guys to know, that this line of thinking is still somewhat tentative.
You wrote, "I do agree with you that the soul is in the catagory of the spirit realm." I have come to question whether biblical cosmology actually incorporates the "dichotomy of realms". I think that dichotomy is the result of reading Platonic cosmology into the Bible.
I don't think "spirit" is the substance of another mystical realm. Spirit is "wind" or "air in motion". Living animals and living people obviously have "spirit" because air is moving into and out from their bodies. They breath. When animals and people stop breathing, that is, when their spirits depart from them, they die. Literal air in motion was so closely tied with life in the biblical writers' culture, this "wind" came to stand for "life" in a figurative sense.
When God breathed the breath of life (all "breath" is "spirit" or "air in motion"; not all "spirit" is "breath" or "air moving into and out from a body") into Adam, it simply means Adam began breathing. When Jesus "gave up the ghost ['pneuma' = 'air in motion']", it simply means Jesus stopped breathing.
I don't think the Bible, at least in the OT, uses "nephesh" ("soul") and "ruach" ("spirit") as synonyms. I can think of a number of verses that say "souls" die. I can't think of any that say "spirits" die. I think that "nephesh" indicates the whole being, dust animated by spirit. When the being's spirit departs, that is, when the being stops breathing, that being becomes a dead soul, or what we in our culture would call a "corpse".
I also question Wierwille's teaching that "spirit of man" is a figure of speech indicating "soul". What evidence do we have for that being the case, other than Wierwille's "say so"?
Those things being said, if the interpretation of the question in Ecclesiates 3:21 is correct, that the spirit of man goes up while the spirit of beast goes down, what are we to make of the declarative statements in verses 19 and 20 that "they all have one breath [one 'ruach' = one 'spirit']" and "they all go unto one place"?
I'm not sure what you're saying with regard to the meaning of the Biblical terms, soul and spirit. You mentioned that the word "spirit" is used to refer to air in motion and connected it with an occurence of nephesh in Genesis 2:7, but you say they're not synonymous.
So if spirit means air in motion, and sould and spirit aren't the same, what term would you use to describe the gift God put on Moses (by which he prophesied) and how does that differ from nephesh?
As for the apparent problem, in Ecclesiastes, it's explained in the verse itself. The meaning of the declaration "they all go unto one place" is that they all retun to dust. The very next verse places a distinction between them in that men and animals both return to dust, but human souls go back to God and animals' don't.
quote:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Further--I say, Furthermore, Mr. Lortz, Ecclesiastes 11:5 reiterates that this is something of a mystery. The Bible doesn't reveal all there is to know about soul life. God made it, God gives it, God reclaims it, and only God understands it.
quote:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
Jerry - I always enjoy dialoguing with you. My wife and I occassionally attend services at the local Christian rescue mission. They are the best I know locally for the practical application of Christianity, since they operate where the "rubber meets the road". But I can't discuss the finer points of theology with them. Different members of the body have different functions. Like I said, I always enjoy dialoguing with you.
You wrote, "You mentioned that the word 'spirit' is used to refer to air in motion and connected it with an occurance of nephesh in Genesis 2:7, but you say they're not synonymous."
I can see that I've made my exposition of Genesis 2:7 too brief. The verse says, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath ['neshamah'] of life ['chaiyim']; and man became a living ['chai'] soul ['nephesh']."
To me, this verse appears to say; man = dust, dust + "neshamah chaiyim" (breath of life) = "nephesh chai" (living soul).
Though they look a little bit alike, "neshamah" (breath) and "nephesh" (soul) are not the same.
Now "neshamah" is not the word "ruach" ("wind" or "spirit"), but we find the phase "breath of life" in other places, like Genesis 7:15: "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath ['ruach' = 'wind' or 'spirit'] of life ['chaiyim']."
And again in Genesis 7:21 and 22; "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath ['ruach' = 'wind' or 'spirit'] of life ['chaiyim'], of all that was in the dry land, died."
The way I understand the use of "neshamah" in Genesis 2:7 is this; while all breath ("neshamah" = "air moving into and out from a body") is spirit ("ruach" = "air in motion"), not all spirit ("ruach" = "air in motion") is breath ("neshamah" = "air moving into and out from a body").
That's why I formulated my understanding of Genesis 2:7 as "man = dust, dust + breath (spirit) = living soul"
A living soul is a two-part being. It has two components; "dust", or what we might call "body", and "spirit". If God has not breathed spirit into a body, that body does not become a living soul (see Ezekiel 37:1-14). When a living being's spirit departs (when it stops breathing), that being becomes a "dead soul" (see Leviticus 21:11; Numbers 6:6, 19:13; Haggai 2:13; in these verses "nephesh" or "soul" is actually translated in the KJV as "body"!?!).
So... the word "nephesh" *does* occur in Genesis 2:7, but that doesn't mean "soul" is synonymous with "breath of life" ("neshamah" or "ruach") or "spirit".
Jerry - You asked, "...what term would you use to describe the gift God put on Moses (by which he prophesied) and how does that differ from nephesh?"
Were you referring to the incidents related in Numbers 11:16-29? The word "spirit" in this section (verses 17, 25 twice, 26 and 29) is consistently translated from "ruach", which is "wind" or "air in motion". As far as I can see, the word "nephesh", or "soul" doesn't occur in the section at all.
Since the presence of spirit (as "breath") is so closely associated with life, I believe the word "spirit" took on the figurative sense of "life". I think the phrase "spirit of God" could be taken to mean "the life of God as evidenced by movement".
It is interesting to note also, that speech cannot normally be produced without breathing. Speech could be seen as a function of "spirit". Hence, an association between "spirit" and prophecy. Perhaps that's why II Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is "God-breathed" ("theopneustos").
How does that differ from "nephesh"? Living "nephesh" indicates a whole being, composed of a body animated by spirit. The spirit is evidenced by "breath". Without breath, the being becomes a dead nephesh, or corpse.
Jerry - Referring to Ecclesiastes 3:19 and 20, you wrote, "The very next verse places a distinction between them in that men and animals both return to dust, but human souls go back to God and animals' don't."
Neither here nor in Ecclesiastes 12:7 does the word "nephesh" ("soul") occur. We are reading about "ruach" ("wind", or "spirit", or "breath", or "air in motion").
Ecclesiates 3:21 is not making a statement about where "souls" go. It is asking a question which was answered in the two previous verses, both humans and animals "have all one breath ['ruach' = 'wind' or 'spirit']. When they die, all the dust returns to dust; all the spirit returns to God, Who gave it.
Here's another point that Wierwille muddified. In PFAL Wierwille declared that soul is "that which makes you *you*". Wierwille associated identity, and hence consciousness, with the "soul" component of his three-part man. The Bible seems to associate identity, and hence consciousness, with the "dust" component of the two-part living soul.
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
Raf
Mike actually had something interesting to say on another thread that actually applies more to this thread. I'm taking the liberty to transfer his statement here in order to keep the other thread from straying off topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
And my reply:
Actually, no, this pretty much lines up with what Wierwille taught about the Bible. His reverence for the perfection of the book is well-known, and your attempt at historical revisionism here is, umm, amusing. But if it makes you happy, I will change the word "standard" to "threshold." Wierwille set a low threshold for what constitutes an actual error. Deal with it.
Straw man: show me an ink blotch that we've listed as an error.
That makes one of us.
Straw man again: if you can establish that one of the errors we've actually pointed out is a printer's error, I'm open to that possibility. I'd say the same for a proofreader's error. But NOT to the editorial process between Wierwille and his editorial staff. That's just outright evasion on your part. If this was the work of God, then the editorial process was protected by Him. You can't have it both ways. Either it's an imperfect work due to the flaws of Wierwille and the editorial staff, or it's the undiluted Word of God. You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Fundamentally dishonest.
I concur. None of the errors we've pointed out fits this description (okay, maybe one or two, but certainly not ALL). That makes your argument pure straw, man.
FINE, THEN ADMIT AN ERROR IS AN ERROR. Once you get honest about that, which you have NOT been, we can move on to more substantive matters. But your patent lack of integrity in dealing with actual errors leads me to believe you are going to be JUST AS dishonest on weightier matters such as the law of believing, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven, the right-dividing of administrations (dispensations), the lordship of Jesus Christ and other, more crucial matters. I can't even get you to admit there IS a pronounceable name for God in the Old Testament, despite what Wierwille said about the subject. Why should I trust you on ANY OTHER more substantive issue?
It remains my contention that Wierwille was wrong about FAR MORE than little things here and there. I've focused on "actual errors" solely for the purpose of having you admit that, yeah, Wierwille can have made mistakes. But unlike you, I believe those mistakes are errors, not just typos or ink blots.
Actually, that is Wierwille's position. It may not be PIVOTAL that we know which rendering is God-breathed, but only one rendering is.
Mike is accusing ME of taking Wierwille too literally. Mark your calendars, folks. I'm going to celebrate the anniversary of this date next year.
Bullsh.t. I think that's the kind of arrogance that led to the fall of TWI. One does not need to hold Wierwille's works to be God-breathed in order to appreciate that some of it had great value. One does not need to consider him some latter day prophet to recognize that there were times when he taught the Bible and, shudder, was right. Your "ants on the trees" analogy, borrowed from What the Hay, is an IGNORANT one, and really, is the fatal flaw in your whole thesis: your notion that one must accept all Wierwille taught as God-breathed or reject it all as raving lunacy is plain WRONG.
There were times when Wierwille taught on certain subjects that he was wrong: substantively, crucially wrong. There were other times when he was substantively, crucially right. On the importance of believing, he was right. On the "LAW" of believing, his communication was flawed. On the role of fear, he was often right. On the role of fear in the life of Job, he was dead wrong.
My relationship with God does not revolve around a pressing need to master the works of VPW. In fact, mastery of Wierwille's books not even on the list of things to do. All that is required of Wierwille is to do the same as you would any other preacher who claims God spoke to him: prove all things, hold fast to that which is good (a process which, by its very definition, requires us to identify that which is good, sift it out of that which is NOT good, and discard the bad).
That's how I "master" PFAL: by recognizing its flawed origin and nature but refusing to discard whatever good that came from its presentation.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on April 11, 2003 at 10:31.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Oh, but Rafael! What you'd see if you really tried to master PFAL instead of being a young whippersnapper is that when Dr wrote that in the Word, he was just using a figure of speech. See? Now it all makes five-senses, um, sense, too.
The figure is called, in Latin, fabricatio in toto, or total fabrication. It is used when someone wants to express a false statement as true in order to use it as a basis to prove another false statement. According to the rules of relational logic, any material implication with a false antecedent trivially leads to a true conditional.
"If pigs fly, then Rafael is the true Queen of Luxembourg."
"If PFAL is the Word of God, then Wierwille was a true apostle."
Get on the ball, Your Royal Highness...
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
...this same figure, in the Greek, is called
"fullashidamI", for those of you unfamiliar
with the Greek.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
WordWolf: Interesting! I'll file that away for future mastery.
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Very well said, Mr. Olmeda.
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Here is one more I almost forgot about. John 5:39 reads, Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life..." In PFAL, even in the book, Dr. removed "ye think." I heard several defenses to this. One from a Limb Leader who said "it is not in the Aramaic." Another said that since "ye think" did not apply to us, Dr. was justified in removing it. However, I never heard anything from the horses mouth. It is interesting that he would not touch this with a ten foot pole in a public forum. Think we have anything here, Rafael? Best Regards.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
My use of the term "Limbleader" is accurate. This was in 1974.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Sorry, I'm not with you on this one, Mr. H. In the book, Wierwille puts an ellipsis ("...") at the part where "ye think" should be, clearly indicating that he recognized those words are in the text. He skipped them because they were not central to his point.
Does removing the words "ye think" substantively change the meaning of the verse? Does the alteration improve or detract from the point he's making in the PFAL book?
My personal belief is that he could have left the words "ye think" in there without causing the confusion he apparently sought to avoid by omitting them. However, I am not prepared to call his editorial decision "an error." Not for the purposes of this forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I can argue either end of whether or not an
ellipsis and exclusion in discussion is
appropriate in this verse.
So long as an ellipse indicates the admission
something WAS deleted, I see no reason to call
this one an error outright, either.
It's open to differences of opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I don't know if this will qualify in the final analysis as an Actual Error, but I think we have a clear example of 2+2=5 in the teachings from Jesus Christ is Not God and the "Christ in You" teaching from PFAL.
As part of his opposition to the Trinity, VP taught that since Jesus was a man when he was in his earthly ministry and Hebrews 13:8 says he is " Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. " Way dogma held that since Jesus was born a man Hebrews 13:8 means he could in no wise become God. Not even if you put him in Calvin's transmogrifier.
But in PFAL, Dr. said (several times) "It's Christ in you, Christ in you, Christ in you" and added that wherever you are, Christ is. This was presented in more detail in the Advanced Class as Christ being the literal inner man; Christ's eyes behind your eyes, his ears behind yours, etc.
So here's the problem. If Jesus Christ is a man and has to remain so, how can he be inside all of us at the same time. If VP was right in the Advanced Class, doesn't that mean Jesus Christ the man became Jesus Christ the spirit?
2+2=5
JerryB
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Anyone? Anyone?
I'd like to look at that a little bit more, Jerry. If I'm reading you right, you're saying the following:
Wierwille used Hebrews 13:8 to prove something it does not prove. He drew conclusions based on that verse, but later contradicted those conclusions when they were inconvenient.
I'm not sure it's 2+2=5. It looks more like "The Square Root of X PLUS the Square Root of Y is equal to the Square Root of Z when X=4, Y=X and Z=25."
In other words, it may be an error, but it's going to take a little head scratching before I agree that it's not interpretational.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Uh.....yeah.
But yes, you get the general idea. This is the same type of doctrinal conflict one runs into when comparing the PFAL teaching on the origin and fate of soul life. At one point, he says that soul life is passed on via the male sperm cells. Yet when he was explaining where the soul goes, he invoked the "law" that everything must return to its original source. (We know it's a law because DOCTOR said so). He claimed that because of this law, the body goes back to dust, the little-h-little-s holy spirit goes back to God who gave it, but the soul life...just goes away into thin air. You breathe your last breath and it's gone. But what about the LAW?? Why doesn't it go back to Daddy who gave it?
If everything must go back to God why didn't Herr DOCTOR teach that the soul life goes back to your Daddy's sperm cell? Or at least the origninal dwelling place thereof? :-)
Probably because that would be a blatantly absurd notion not even wild-eyed hippies would accept. So his doctrine on the mortality of the soul contradicts his statement that everything must go back to its source.
In other words, Where a=7 and b=10, a+b does not equal 17.
Either a does not equal 7; [soul life does not come from a sperm cell, but from God or some other source]
or b does not equal 10; [soul life doesn't evaporate into thin air, but rather goes back to God who gave it].
Or the whole thing is a mystery and will never make sense, no matter how you wrestle it.
Gotta go pick up the kids!
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Regarding "Christ In You": Martindale taught that "Christ In You" was figure of speech because he was a literal man who could only be in one place at one time; the figure referred to us having the abilities, etc. of Jesus Christ.
Don't know if Martindale's position accurately reflected Wierwille's teaching on this.
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
To play Wierwille's advocate: Soul life was originally made in man when God blew into his nostrils the breath of life. Therefore, man blows soul life right back out at his last breath. Just as the soul had no independence or personality before God blew it into Adam, it has no independence or personality when man blows it back out. But God will restore it to us at the resurrection. The "law" then, remains intact.
Regardless of whether you accept the above explanation, it is sufficiently reasonable to keep this off the actual errors list (that, and the fact that I get to make up the rules as I go along, which I imagine must be getting a tad frustrating by now).
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Wellllll, let's take another look at this soul thing, shall we?
Y'see here Ecclesiastes 12:6 & 7 say that when a fellow dies, the spirit goes back to God who gave it.
Sounds like the Bible vindicates VP's law about everything going back to its source.
BUT
On page 235 of PFAL, DOCTOR wrote (by revelation of course)
There are two problems with this paragraph. The first is the assertion that the idea of the soul going back to God is not biblical. As we see above, Ecclesiastes 12:6&7 say exactly that.
The second error in this paragraph is VP's assertion that if one believes the soul goes back to God, he must also believe that the sould of animals do also. This too, contradicts the Bible. Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 indicate that both men and animals have soul life, but their destinations are diametrically opposed to each other.
So let's summarize. VP says that the soul of a man either goes to his progeny or nowhere (PFAL, page 237, paragraph 5). VP says that if human souls go back to God, animals do too.
The Bible says that soul life goes back to God who gave it, but that animals' souls go down to the earth.
I say, Actual Error. What say ye, O Rafael, Keeper of the Thread?
Peace Out Homies!
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
OK,
now THAT one I'd call a 2 plus 2 equals 5
error, when documented and stated that way.
I'm just casting my vote.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Jerry - I think you and I both agree that this whole "body, soul, spirit" thing needs to be re-examined in detail. I still haven't studied it enough to make any definitive pronouncements, but I no longer believe what we were taught in PFAL.
It appears to me that Genesis 2:7 indicates "man = dust, dust + breath (spirit) = living soul" rather than "man = body + soul + spirit". Especially in light of Ezekiel 37:1-14, another place in the Word of God where the Lord animates human beings. Check out how the English translators used "wind" and "spirit" interchangably to translate "ruach".
Speaking of "ruach", check out its uses in the section of scripture you just quoted:
Ecclesiates 3:19 "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath ['ruach' = 'spirit']; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 "All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
21 "Who knoweth the spirit ['ruach' = 'spirit'] of man that goeth upward, and the spirit ['ruach' = 'spirit'] of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?"
First notice that this passage doesn't refer to "souls" at all. It's only about dust and spirit. It says men and animals are both made of dust, and both animated by the same spirit (they all have one 'ruach'... one 'spirit'). Furthermore, it says they both go to the same place.
The sentence "all go unto one place" is a declarative statement. Verse 21 is a question, "who knows that the spirit of a man goes up and the spirit of an anumal goes down?"
I think that people were erroneously teaching, at the time the Ecclesiast wrote, that the spirits of men went up while the spirits of animals went down. I think the sense of verse 21 is "So the spirits of men go up and the spirits of animals go down, do they? Oh, yeah? Sez who?"
Just a bit more grist for the mill.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Hi Steve, God bless! Good to see ya back in the fray.
I hate to be contentious, but I must point out a potentially important difference between the verse you quoted and the statement you made.
Um....that's not actually what the verse says. What the KJV says is, "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward..."
You changed the position of the article "that", effectively changing the object of the question from "Who knows the SPIRIT that goeth upward?" to "Who knows THAT the spirit goes upward?"
I don't have access to the original Hebrew texts to see where the article belongs, so I may be way off base. But I don't think the verse is questioning the assertion that the spirit of man goes upward, especially since elsewhere in Ecclesiastes (12:6&7) it says plainly that the spirit goes back to God who gave it. I think it is questioning the depth of our knowledge of spiritual matters, which is kind of the whole point of this discussion.
But I do agree with you that the soul is in the category of the spiritual realm,( as DOCTOR also asserted in this section of the class). And I agree that the PFAL teaching that Adam was body, soul, and spirit is not supported by Genesis. The reason for this doctrine, which is also taught by Kenneth Hagin & Co., is the apparent contradiction in the "thou shalt surely die" statement of Genesis 2:17 and the post-paradise longevity of Adam and Eve.
If you interpret Gen 2:17 literally, then God told Adam that if he ate fo the treeoftheknowledgeofgoodandevil he would die that very day. Even Smikeol knows they both lived for centuries after their transgression. VP and Hagin get around this by adding an element of life to Adam's original makeup so they can say it died on the day they sinned. In my humble opinion, these are the kinds of mind games one has to play in order to come up with an inerrant Bible.
But that's a topic for another thread.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Jerry - It's good to be back. I just had the worst case of bronchitis I've had since 1971. I was off work for a month. It *is* good to be back!
I can only make a few points, then the rest of my weekend is going to be taken up with family Easter activities. As I wrote earlier, I am still developing my line of thinking on this subject. I will be making catagorical statements for you guys to respond to, but I realize, and I want you guys to know, that this line of thinking is still somewhat tentative.
You wrote, "I do agree with you that the soul is in the catagory of the spirit realm." I have come to question whether biblical cosmology actually incorporates the "dichotomy of realms". I think that dichotomy is the result of reading Platonic cosmology into the Bible.
I don't think "spirit" is the substance of another mystical realm. Spirit is "wind" or "air in motion". Living animals and living people obviously have "spirit" because air is moving into and out from their bodies. They breath. When animals and people stop breathing, that is, when their spirits depart from them, they die. Literal air in motion was so closely tied with life in the biblical writers' culture, this "wind" came to stand for "life" in a figurative sense.
When God breathed the breath of life (all "breath" is "spirit" or "air in motion"; not all "spirit" is "breath" or "air moving into and out from a body") into Adam, it simply means Adam began breathing. When Jesus "gave up the ghost ['pneuma' = 'air in motion']", it simply means Jesus stopped breathing.
I don't think the Bible, at least in the OT, uses "nephesh" ("soul") and "ruach" ("spirit") as synonyms. I can think of a number of verses that say "souls" die. I can't think of any that say "spirits" die. I think that "nephesh" indicates the whole being, dust animated by spirit. When the being's spirit departs, that is, when the being stops breathing, that being becomes a dead soul, or what we in our culture would call a "corpse".
I also question Wierwille's teaching that "spirit of man" is a figure of speech indicating "soul". What evidence do we have for that being the case, other than Wierwille's "say so"?
Those things being said, if the interpretation of the question in Ecclesiates 3:21 is correct, that the spirit of man goes up while the spirit of beast goes down, what are we to make of the declarative statements in verses 19 and 20 that "they all have one breath [one 'ruach' = one 'spirit']" and "they all go unto one place"?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Hey Steve. Glad you're feeling better.
I'm not sure what you're saying with regard to the meaning of the Biblical terms, soul and spirit. You mentioned that the word "spirit" is used to refer to air in motion and connected it with an occurence of nephesh in Genesis 2:7, but you say they're not synonymous.
So if spirit means air in motion, and sould and spirit aren't the same, what term would you use to describe the gift God put on Moses (by which he prophesied) and how does that differ from nephesh?
As for the apparent problem, in Ecclesiastes, it's explained in the verse itself. The meaning of the declaration "they all go unto one place" is that they all retun to dust. The very next verse places a distinction between them in that men and animals both return to dust, but human souls go back to God and animals' don't.
Further--I say, Furthermore, Mr. Lortz, Ecclesiastes 11:5 reiterates that this is something of a mystery. The Bible doesn't reveal all there is to know about soul life. God made it, God gives it, God reclaims it, and only God understands it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Jerry - I always enjoy dialoguing with you. My wife and I occassionally attend services at the local Christian rescue mission. They are the best I know locally for the practical application of Christianity, since they operate where the "rubber meets the road". But I can't discuss the finer points of theology with them. Different members of the body have different functions. Like I said, I always enjoy dialoguing with you.
You wrote, "You mentioned that the word 'spirit' is used to refer to air in motion and connected it with an occurance of nephesh in Genesis 2:7, but you say they're not synonymous."
I can see that I've made my exposition of Genesis 2:7 too brief. The verse says, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath ['neshamah'] of life ['chaiyim']; and man became a living ['chai'] soul ['nephesh']."
To me, this verse appears to say; man = dust, dust + "neshamah chaiyim" (breath of life) = "nephesh chai" (living soul).
Though they look a little bit alike, "neshamah" (breath) and "nephesh" (soul) are not the same.
Now "neshamah" is not the word "ruach" ("wind" or "spirit"), but we find the phase "breath of life" in other places, like Genesis 7:15: "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath ['ruach' = 'wind' or 'spirit'] of life ['chaiyim']."
And again in Genesis 7:21 and 22; "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath ['ruach' = 'wind' or 'spirit'] of life ['chaiyim'], of all that was in the dry land, died."
The way I understand the use of "neshamah" in Genesis 2:7 is this; while all breath ("neshamah" = "air moving into and out from a body") is spirit ("ruach" = "air in motion"), not all spirit ("ruach" = "air in motion") is breath ("neshamah" = "air moving into and out from a body").
That's why I formulated my understanding of Genesis 2:7 as "man = dust, dust + breath (spirit) = living soul"
A living soul is a two-part being. It has two components; "dust", or what we might call "body", and "spirit". If God has not breathed spirit into a body, that body does not become a living soul (see Ezekiel 37:1-14). When a living being's spirit departs (when it stops breathing), that being becomes a "dead soul" (see Leviticus 21:11; Numbers 6:6, 19:13; Haggai 2:13; in these verses "nephesh" or "soul" is actually translated in the KJV as "body"!?!).
So... the word "nephesh" *does* occur in Genesis 2:7, but that doesn't mean "soul" is synonymous with "breath of life" ("neshamah" or "ruach") or "spirit".
Taking a break. More later.
Love,
Steve
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Jerry - You asked, "...what term would you use to describe the gift God put on Moses (by which he prophesied) and how does that differ from nephesh?"
Were you referring to the incidents related in Numbers 11:16-29? The word "spirit" in this section (verses 17, 25 twice, 26 and 29) is consistently translated from "ruach", which is "wind" or "air in motion". As far as I can see, the word "nephesh", or "soul" doesn't occur in the section at all.
Since the presence of spirit (as "breath") is so closely associated with life, I believe the word "spirit" took on the figurative sense of "life". I think the phrase "spirit of God" could be taken to mean "the life of God as evidenced by movement".
It is interesting to note also, that speech cannot normally be produced without breathing. Speech could be seen as a function of "spirit". Hence, an association between "spirit" and prophecy. Perhaps that's why II Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is "God-breathed" ("theopneustos").
How does that differ from "nephesh"? Living "nephesh" indicates a whole being, composed of a body animated by spirit. The spirit is evidenced by "breath". Without breath, the being becomes a dead nephesh, or corpse.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Jerry - Referring to Ecclesiastes 3:19 and 20, you wrote, "The very next verse places a distinction between them in that men and animals both return to dust, but human souls go back to God and animals' don't."
Neither here nor in Ecclesiastes 12:7 does the word "nephesh" ("soul") occur. We are reading about "ruach" ("wind", or "spirit", or "breath", or "air in motion").
Ecclesiates 3:21 is not making a statement about where "souls" go. It is asking a question which was answered in the two previous verses, both humans and animals "have all one breath ['ruach' = 'wind' or 'spirit']. When they die, all the dust returns to dust; all the spirit returns to God, Who gave it.
Here's another point that Wierwille muddified. In PFAL Wierwille declared that soul is "that which makes you *you*". Wierwille associated identity, and hence consciousness, with the "soul" component of his three-part man. The Bible seems to associate identity, and hence consciousness, with the "dust" component of the two-part living soul.
Love,
Steve
Link 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.