quote:We were taught HOW to handle difficulties in God's Word. I believe that IN THIS THREAD it is crucial for people to employ those same techniques for handling PFAL difficulties.
In this, I wholeheartedly agree. When we come to a discrepancy in the Bible, we deal with it using certain methods, procedures and principles.
Here's the problem, and precisely the derailment I am attempting to avoid:
Your premise is and has been that PFAL is God-breathed. In order for that premise to be true, PFAL must adhere to its own definition of what it means to be God-breathed. This thread has shown, repeatedly, that PFAL does not meet that standard. We have shown it with example after example after example.
Now, how do you intend to address those examples? So far, you have done so by no means except for evasion, obfuscation, "linguistic legerdemain" and shifting the terms of the discussion in order to place the Bible under the scrutiny we are placing PFAL. That's a derailment and I'll tell you why.
We can all agree that in order for PFAL to be God-breathed, it has to at the very least meet its own definition of what it is to be God-breathed, right?
Now, in order for us to agree that the Bible meets Wierwille's standard for what it means to be God-breathed, we must conclude that the Bible has no errors or contradictions.
The problem is, not everyone on this thread can or will agree with Wierwille's standard. HE must agree with himself. But we don't have to agree with him.
There is honest disagreement about what the term "God-breathed" means. But Wierwille's definition is plain and leaves no room for even ONE PREPOSITION to be out of place. Does his own written work meet that standard?
Now, if Jerry (with his definition of God-breathed) begins to answer your question about Bible contradictions (I'll save you the suspense: he has no problem with their existence), and Goey (with a similar definition) and Zixar (with a third definition) and I (with a fourth) all start answering your question, in no time flat we will have a rambling thread that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual errors in PFAL. It will be an endless debate about what it means for a scripture to be "given by inspiration of God."
This is the derailment I am trying to prevent.
You're making a huge presumption when you imply that the people on this thread (or at the Cafe) agree that the Bible is without errors or contradictions. You are holding us to a standard set by PFAL, but many of us reject PFAL's authority to set that standard.
YOU, on the other hand, hold PFAL to be "God-breathed" and even MORE reliable than the Bible "remnants," as you disrespectfully refer to the book Wierwille publicly revered.
So, adopting YOUR logic, I may fairly conclude that the Bible will have errors and discrepancies attributable to the "fact" that the scriptures are but remnants of "the Word of God." YOU, on the other hand, are the one who has "painted yourself into a corner." For while you have provided us with your very own answer as to why the Bible may contradict itself from time to time, you have given NO REASON why PFAL might do the same. And we're not talking about typos or proofreaders' mistakes. We're talking about demanding, of God's most recent and undefiled revelation, that it meet its own standards for being "God-breathed."
You keep trying to get away from that, when it is the sole underlying issue of this thread. You want to come here and accuse us of inconsistency (aka, painting ourselves into a corner), when we never claimed the "consistency" mantle for ourselves! It is a classic straw man argument. Accuse us of setting a standard, then chastise us for not meeting it. The only problem is, we never set any such standard!
Wierwille, on the other hand, set a standard for what it means to be "God-breathed." Part of that standard was that there could be no errors or contradictions. NOT ONE PREPOSITION can be out of place in PFAL or any of the collateral books in order for your premise to hold. That is the standard set in PFAL itself.
The integrity of the Bible is a separate issue, worthy of discussion, but not the point of this thread.
What the people in this thread THINK of the Bible, and how to approach its discrepancies, is a separate issue, worthy of discussion, but not the point of this thread.
This thread is about "actual errors" in PFAL. If YOU continue to contend that PFAL is "the God-breathed Word," then the burden is on YOU to explain its the errors and contradictions. You have failed to address even one.
Your continued efforts to put the Bible on trial notwithstanding, you have FAILED to derail this thread.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 27, 2003 at 13:12.]
quote:Besides, haven't you noticed that, as much as I disagree with this, rudeness is the name of the game here at GS. EVERYONE EXERCISES THEIR RIGHT TO BE RUDE HERE!!! If you don't think so, why don't you join with EWB's thread and try to make this a less nasty place to place controversial ideas on the table? I'm all for lessons in manners, and the best teaching is a good example!
If you don't think you're being rude, don't defend it.
I don't mind you placing controversial ideas on the table. I DO mind your repeated method of coming in, claiming to have an answer or approach, refusing to share it, and then claiming to have no time to post the information you've spent the last five, six, 27 or 28 years gathering.
Address a (supposed) actual error and let's discuss it (you seem to be on track with that in your "private interpretation" post). If you want to attack the integrity of the Bible remnants, start another thread. I'm sure plenty of people would be happy to engage you in that discussion.
But if you want to discuss how to address what you laughably call "apparent" errors in PFAL, then I'm all ears.
“The problem is, not everyone on this thread can or will agree on what it means to be God-breathed. There is honest disagreement about what that term means.”
I’ll drink to that!
Rafael, HONEST! I’ve been trying to think of a way to say the same thing of me!!!
In my posts, I can’t remember how I myself defined “God-breathed” OR EVEN IF I DID give a formal solid definition.
I think my definition of it here at GS ...(I haven’t checked the record, MY record here at GS - yet)... I think my definition of it here was DEFINED FOR ME by Research Geek and Alfakat MONTHS before I started posting.
When I started posting, I think I avoided being detected as the mystery ghoul that RG and Alfa portrayed me as last fall. When, after a few days (I think) of posting suddenly and unceremoniously I was UNMASKED! ....I threw down my disguise mask and sword and cast myself on the mercy of the court.
.... (I fully expected the unmasking scene, I just didn’t know WHEN it would happen in the play)....
From then on I went along with your (and other GSers) supposed understanding of my exact definition of “God-breathed” and tried to smooth it out as we went. I didn’t really CARE if you all got it right and formal. I didn’t come here to formally define anything or prove anything.
My bag, my ADMITTED agenda is to make certain lost elements in Dr’s tape/print record come back to the center stage for PFAL grads where I think they belong, and where GS readers can pick and choose from the WHOLE spectrum of post TWI thought hee in these post progressive times.
I could be wrong on some of this, but I think I got sort of roped into my definition of “God-breathed,” and I just haven’t had the time, inspiration or open door to admit this clearly, and totally straighten it out. I’m still a student of PFAL and I haven’t really checked this topic out in detail. Maybe someday...
Thanks for the open door, Rafael. Maybe this will help us find a little more shared ground.
I think SOME of our disagreements are based on pure mis-communication.
Now there’s a little less.
So my main bag is the record, my sideline here is the logic. That’s all I have time for now. I know some of you want all logic, and rely on memory instead the record, but that’s not very efficient. My orientation is a little different, but I think we can respect each other’s chosen stances.
As for these things in the record, to some degree Dr hid things, and to some degree the adversary did some hiding too. The difference is Dr’s had a built in self-interpreter due to the hand of God upon Dr’s efforts, and God is now bringing these back to OUR attention and the logic is self contained for those who care to examine them carefully and respectfully. The adversary still tries to hide them, a kind of anti-interpreter.
There are lots more of these hidden items in the record, and I’ve sent a few samples to a FEW of you posters here. You have my permission to discuss here what I sent you, but I am incorporating your suggestions into a next draft. I would prefer if we post the UPDATED version of what I sent you two or three GSers.
I don’t mind talking about definitions or proofs, but I’m pretty much done with that approach after having exhausted its benefits years ago. It was not a wasted 27 year effort, it’s just DONE! I now have a five year adventure going with quite a few other grads scattered around the country (one or two post here) in finding these things Dr hid in the record. I’m just one of the first to start making them known publicly.
Many elements and implications of Dr’s record have direct application to MANY threads here, both in subject matter AND seeing that this record itself is on the center stage here as the main punching doll you all have propped up! That’s why I feel free to pop in at times, and soon should try another thread origination.
Regarding “private interpretation” and Earl Burton’s article you wrote:
“I have not seen the article. Could you summarize its relevant points?”
I haven’t read it in 20 years, but I see my copy has lots of notes in that one article, so I went at it, but it ALL leaked out. Use it or lose it.
I can xerox it and sent you a paper copy. OK? Are there any people down there who have copies? I heared you don’t have JCNG too. I might be able to help there.
quote:From then on I went along with your (and other GSers) supposed understanding of my exact definition of “God-breathed” and tried to smooth it out as we went. I didn’t really CARE if you all got it right and formal. I didn’t come here to formally define anything or prove anything.
quote:I could be wrong on some of this, but I think I got sort of roped into my definition of “God-breathed,” and I just haven’t had the time, inspiration or open door to admit this clearly, and totally straighten it out.
You got "roped into" NOTHING.
In calling PFAL God-breathed, which you have, you submit yourself to its definition of "God-breathed." If you do not accept PFAL's definition of God-breathed, then you can allow for the existence of actual errors in PFAL without demanding of it the perfection it demands of God's Word.
I would find that viewpoint silly, but then, some would find my own viewpoints silly. Food fight.
But you haven't done that. You deny that these errors are "actual" by consistently referring to them as "apparent." As long as you continue to do that, the purpose of the thread remains self-evident.
Are you trying to say that Wierwille was WRONG when he wrote that one preposition out of place would cause your Bible to crumble to pieces? If you will agree that there might be something in PFAL that is wrong, a flat out actual error, then there's no need to continue the discussion.
quote:As for these things in the record, to some degree Dr hid things, and to some degree the adversary did some hiding too. The difference is Dr’s had a built in self-interpreter due to the hand of God upon Dr’s efforts, and God is now bringing these back to OUR attention and the logic is self contained for those who care to examine them carefully and respectfully. The adversary still tries to hide them, a kind of anti-interpreter.
Whether you intended to or not, you just called me a tool of the adversary. Not that I'm offended, mind you. I think you're an idolater. Food fight.
quote:I don’t mind talking about definitions or proofs, but I’m pretty much done with that approach after having exhausted its benefits years ago.
On the contrary, you DO mind talking about definitions and proofs, as evidenced by your failure and refusal to do so. You say you have exhausted the benefits of doing so, but in my opinion, the only thing you have done is abandoned God's Word for idolatry, for a position that is so unstable that a fair conversation is impossible, as you are constantly shifting the terms of the discussion. Using many many words, you say very very little.
I just hope that enough people can see the foolishness of exalting the flawed works of a flawed man over the Bible. If you can convince a few sycophantic idolaters of your position, so be it. But it's no guarantee for truth, as LCM found out.
I haven’t read (the Earl Burton article) in 20 years, but I see my copy has lots of notes in that one article, so I went at it, but it ALL leaked out. Use it or lose it.
I can xerox it and sent you a paper copy. OK? Are there any people down there who have copies? I heared you don’t have JCNG too. I might be able to help there.
Contact me by e-mail and I will be happy to give you my home address, Mike.
I do have a copy of all Wierwille's books. I just didn't have them at work with me one day when I posted. Someone must have been confused when I wrote that, but I DO have that book, and all the others.
If the "minority voice" would spend half as many paragraphs on directly addressing the topic as he does on rehashing peripheral matters he's already posted numerous times, it might help others take his views a little more seriously than what they find in the average fortune cookie, which, although banal, does have the greatly-admirable property of wrapping its entire message into a small enough space that one only wastes a tiny fraction of one's life on reading and then discarding it.
I just saw you as I'm ready to post to Raf. You're next. I think?
Rafael, you wrote: “But if you want to discuss how to address what you laughably
call "apparent" errors in PFAL, then I'm all ears.”
I do go for the laughs at times, but certainly not for every point.
The way I approach “difficulties” in PFAL is the EXACT SAME general way I approach “difficulties” in the received texts of the Bible.
I assume there’s no problem in the originals.
I assume the difficulties either lie in (A) the reader’s interpretation or in (B) in the “middlemen” like proofreaders and printers. Each of these categories have multiple entries and subdivisions.
Category A is vastly more likely for PFAL, whereas both A and B are heavily utilized for Bible texts.
The net result of my working these things, and I invite others to try it you’ll like it, is this set of principles I feel safest in betting my life on:
1.
PFAL teaches me to love the Bible as it was originally given.
PFAL teaches me HOW to fix some of modern Bible version errors.
2.
The number of errors that have crept into PFAL printed texts is VASTLY less that the amount of error that’s crept into the Bible texts and translations and interpretations.
3.
Bible versions like KJV are absolutely necessary to grasp PFA.L.
PFAL are absolutely necessary to grasp Bible versions like KJV.
4.
Therefore I employ very similar techniques to deal with difficulties I may at times have with both PFAL and Bibles.
5.
I have a fun 20 year project, usually in total hibernation, going to reconcile James with Galatians. I’ve at one time considered 10 different schemes to neatly tie up THAT difficulty. AT NO TIME however, have I considered cutting James out of the God-breathed (undefined as it is) canon to make this reconcilliation.
Did you know Martin Luther ALMOST did this with his German translation of the Bible? So legend goes, anyway. Instead of nearly saved, martin Luther was almost drowned!
I wonder if anyone else would ever consider treating the Bible that way?
Ok. I’ll take it with me to work. I have to leave soon. It’s not morning here anymore. Yikes, I’m four hours late for work. Oh well, that’s the benefits of being self unemployed.
I gotta get going soon. I haven't even eated breakfast yet, take a shower, and check in one last time at GS befor dashing out the door to Kinkos.
Zixar rote:
If the "minority voice" would spend half as many paragraphs on directly addressing the topic as he does on rehashing peripheral matters he's already posted numerous times, it might help others take his views a little more seriously than what they find in the average fortune cookie, which, although banal, does have the greatly-admirable property of wrapping its entire message into a small enough space that one only wastes a tiny fraction of one's life on reading and then discarding it.
I should shut up and declare victory right now, just for getting a substantive post out of the guy.
Of course, it did not address a single actual error in PFAL, nor did it address the premise that in order for PFAL to be God-breathed, it has to meet its own definition of "God-breathed," but shoot, we actually got some substance out of Mike! Yeeeeeehaw!
Sorry to interupt. Ok I'm still on the image of God being spirit and formed made created.
It's also interesting that the word formed is also used regarding the spirit of man:
Zech 12:1 "The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth (yatsar) the spirit of man within him."
Yatsar is supposed to be what God did to the body of man not the soul or spirit...
Dr. Franz Delitzsch a renowned OT scholar had this to say about Isaiah 43:7
quote: [Even] every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.
The three synonyms bring out the might, the freeness, and the riches of grace, with which Jehovah called Israel into existence, to glorify Himself in it, and that he might be glofified by it. They form a climax, for (bara - created) signifies to produce as a new thing; (yatsar - formed) to shape what has been produced; and (asah - made) to make it perfect or complete...
From what I am studying here this section does not refer to the days of creation. A particular key to understanding the point God is making is just taking the time to back up a few verses to Isaiah 43:1:
"But now thus saith the LORD that created (BARA) thee, O Jacob, and he that formed (YATSAR) thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called [thee] by thy name; thou [art] mine. "
As you can see ASAH is left out here. If you go back and read Isaiah 42 all the way through the end of 43 you will see the point God is making. As Dr. Delitzch summarized summarized "to glorify Himself in it, and that he might be glorified by it. They form a climax, " This is not a section that deals with creation. The point is ASAH! That is the big buildup in the context! God wanted them complete or perfected but most of the time they weren't living up to their side of the bargain!! Read the context and look for the buildup.
As I was saying earlier if you are going to teach the image of God is spirit and formed made created these aren't the verses to do it with.
edited to clean up spelling and repeat phrases
[This message was edited by troubledwine on January 27, 2003 at 18:32.]
The way I approach “difficulties” in PFAL is the EXACT SAME general way I approach “difficulties” in the received texts of the Bible.
Since you hold PFAL to be "God-breathed," I would expect nothing less of you. We presume you and Wierwille agree on the meaning of God-breathed. However, you do not have the right to expect us to do the same, as we do not agree with each other on the definition of "God-breathed."
quote:I assume there’s no problem in the originals.
The PFAL book we have is not the original. The original actually contained more errors. The most recently published one as of the time of VPW's death still contains errors, which you still have not addressed. I presume for the sake of this discussion that it is only the most recently edited version of Wierwille's book, circa 1982, that you would consider "God-breathed." Correct me if I am mistaken.
quote:I assume the difficulties either lie in (A) the reader’s interpretation or in (B) in the “middlemen” like proofreaders and printers.
That is PRECISELY why I deliberately sought to free this list of errors of interpretation. The errors we have listed are all actual errors that cannot be attributed to interpretation OR to your so-called "middlemen."
My problem with your approach is that you still fail to show how it resolves even ONE of the actual errors we posted. The problem is not in your approach, but in the underlying premise. In the case of PFAL, the error is in the actual writing, intent and doctrine of the writer. Its author is not God, but a man who made errors. It doesn't disqualify EVERYTHING he wrote, but it disqualifies that which he got wrong.
The bottom line is that you refuse to believe Wierwille ever got anything wrong in print (in the PFAL book and collaterals). THAT PREMISE IS FALSE. That is our basic disagreement.
quote:Category A is vastly more likely for PFAL, whereas both A and B are heavily utilized for Bible texts.
You're right. It's highly unlikely that we're going to see enough proofreader errors to cause major problems in PFAL. Of the actual errors we've listed, which you've still failed to address, NOT ONE can be attributed to a proofreader error. And I contend that not one can be attributed to an error of interpretation (okay, maybe one or two). But in order for your position to hold, ALL THE ACTUAL ERRORS WE'VE POSTED must be attributable to interpretation. The vast majority are not.
quote:The net result of my working these things, and I invite others to try it you’ll like it, is this set of principles I feel safest in betting my life on:
If you're betting your life on these, remind me not to stand too close to you. :)-->
quote:1. PFAL teaches me to love the Bible as it was originally given. PFAL teaches me HOW to fix some of modern Bible version errors.
That's two points. But I'll let that pass. I agree with both statements and I agree that they embody, perhaps, PFAL's most lasting value (for me, anyway).
quote:2. The number of errors that have crept into PFAL printed texts is VASTLY less that the amount of error that’s crept into the Bible texts and translations and interpretations.
Again, I agree. The errors in PFAL are inherent to the text. They did not need to creep in. The author put them there on purpose, not realizing he was wrong.
quote:3. Bible versions like KJV are absolutely necessary to grasp PFAL. PFAL are absolutely necessary to grasp Bible versions like KJV.
Again, that's two statements, not one. The first is defensible. The second, reprehensible. You cannot understand PFAL without the Bible. But you sure can understand the Bible without PFAL. We could argue this for years, but you are so entrenched in your idolatry on that subject that you've already repeatedly declared a lack of willingness to listen to any alternative viewpoint. So I'll save my breath for that inflatable date I've got stashed next to my pirate copy of Christian Family and Sex Sex Sex.
quote:4. Therefore I employ very similar techniques to deal with difficulties I may at times have with both PFAL and Bibles.
You said that already. I have yet to see you employ your techniques to ANY of the actual errors on this thread (save for a pathetic attempt to explain the Nathan record).
quote:5. I have a fun 20 year project, usually in total hibernation, going to reconcile James with Galatians. I’ve at one time considered 10 different schemes to neatly tie up THAT difficulty. AT NO TIME however, have I considered cutting James out of the God-breathed (undefined as it is) canon to make this reconcilliation.
Did you know Martin Luther ALMOST did this with his German translation of the Bible? So legend goes, anyway. Instead of nearly saved, martin Luther was almost drowned!
I wonder if anyone else would ever consider treating the Bible that way?
I'm starting to wonder if you were being honest when you spoke of monitoring these message boards ever since Waydale. If you had, you would know that Jerry and I had a very long and protracted debate about this very subject. The reconciliation of James and Galatians is a fascinating project. I find it most enjoyable. It should take you more than 20 years. I know it will take me at least as long. But it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. If you decide to start another thread on the subject, I know there are plenty of people who would be happy to share their observations with you. Fascinating, fascinating subject.
I corresponded briefly with Jerry when he first appeared on Waydale. I double checked his website just today. It does look like a fascinating read, but it also looks in skimming to solve the problem by cutting out James. That's why I asked Jerry to tell me plain.
[This message was edited by Mike on January 30, 2003 at 22:34.]
You were not interrupting. Your comments are actually more on topic than mine. Mike and I are discussing how to approach the errors identified on this thread. But you're discussing an actual error. So there was no need to apologize for "interrupting" the discussion by returning to the main thread topic.
That said, you made some good observations. Wierwille's insistence that the body was formed, the soul was made and the spirit was created just crumbles on close examination, doesn't it? The bible says the spirit was formed, the spirit was made, and the spirit was created (actually, does it ever say the spirit was created)?
I thik Wierwille's definition of "made" is an actual error too, especially as he distinguished it from "create." Spirit existed before God placed it in Adam. How do we know this? Because God is Spirit. So are the angels. SO there was a substance existing of which the thing made consists, which is Wierwille's definition for "made."
Wierwille's definition of "made" is so convoluted that I don't know that it can be nailed down long enough to call it an actual error. Who was it that used the analogy? "It's like nailing Jello to a wall."
Further, remember how Wierwille said "formed, made and created" CANNOT be synonymous, or words have no meaning? He said the same of "body, soul and spirit." God uses precise terms to mean precise things, and they cnnot be synonymous, period.
I think a strong case can be made that, Biblically, made and created are synonymous.
Meanwhile, he has no problem saying "the promise of the father" = "power from on high" = "baptized with the Holy Ghost."
Had they all occurred in one verse, Wierwille would have had conniptions and tried to explain how they couldn't be the same, or language would be useless as a form of communication!
This is my last shot for today. You wrote: “Since you hold PFAL to be "God-breathed," I would expect nothing less of you. We presume you and Wierwille agree on the meaning of God-breathed.”
No, NO, NO! This is what I tried to explain earlier, I DON”T “agree” with Dr on the meaning of God-breathed, in the sense that I have not STUDIED that particular subject out exactly. I have a rough feel only.
I’m mostly into READING these books, not writing about them with great precision and formality.
I haven’t studied this out to know how exactly I’ve lined up my rough feel with what is written. This takes time. Maybe a whole year!
I’m not qualified right here and now to extract at once ALL the places where Dr uses that phrase and/or defines it. I’d have to gear up to a project like that and spend weeks just looking for associated key words to search for. I’d need to have ALL those places documented before even STARTING to work the subject. You guys want to dredge up from memory what you THINK are all the pertinent passages of where Dr discusses something, and run from there with it RIGHT NOW!
I’m trying by example to teach that this is the proper way to handle both Bible and PFAL difficulties.
I resist this temptation to rush to judgement, and that’s why I dodge SOME of what your saying, or ignore it. I don’t HAVE to untangle even one on these difficulties on this thread to proceed with my PFAL mastery any more than a Bible student would have to clear up all of Google’s Bible difficulties before proceeding with their studies.
Neither do any of you all NEED to have all these difficulties cleared up before accepting the challenge to come back to the pure written PFAL, minus all the trappings, minus all the people bs, minus all the things that hurt us, and we can do it up right. We’ve all only winged it, and I am reporting that there is an exciting adventure for those who check this out more carefully.
Then you wrote:
“The most recently published one as of the time of VPW's death still contains errors, which you still have not addressed.”
I agree. That’s THE acceptable way of handling these kind of difficulties. I see them get cleared up in the reading with respect and mastery process, and you want me to engage in the direct confrontation with vast disrespects of the writings in question?
No way!
The way I do OCCASIONALLY directly confront any of these difficulties, Bible or PFAL, is either alone with God, or with others who WANT to see it fit.
You guys DON’T want to see it fit. I see you as an unfit research team, and I teach readers of GS to not engage with such unfit teams. I’m also teaching by example that readers and posters of GS who want to look into the challenge Dr gave us at the end of his life of mastering PFAL, they need not be afraid of the techniques used on this thread, techniques I think are unreasonable and unfruitful.
I’m not afraid of your taunts to “explain or be befuddled!”
I see many other options than the ones you challenge me to and I dodge with complete impunity. It’s my God given right.
I corresponded briefly with Gerry when he first appeared on Waydale. I double checked his website just today. It does look like a fascinating read, but it also looks in skimming to solve the problem by cutting out James. That's why I asked Jerry to tell me plain.
I don't know if Jerry's views have changed in the last two years, but I can sum up his statements from way back when.
The conflicting statements in Galatians and James led him to believe first that James had no place in the canon of scripture, and later, that James has as much right to be in the canon as Galatians. Ultimately, he allowed that the Bible CAN contradict itself.
1. This leads to an important question: Can the Bible contradict itself and still be the Word of God? Some would say yes. Others would say no. I have no doubt whatsoever that Wierwille would say no.
Therefore, since this thread addresses the view that Wierwille's works are God-breathed, we are bound in this discussion by Wierwille's definition of God-breathed. If he was wrong about that, then we have to agree that his works are NOT on par with the Bible according to his own definition.
That's why I was trying to block your question to Jerry. It would have led to a derailment of the thread on a substantive issue deserving of its own thread. We've had some frivolous derailments before, but they were frivolous, and it was relatively easy to get back on topic. It would be VERY difficult to get back on topic once the issue of Bible contradictions became the subject of discussion. That's why I repeatedly insisted that if you want to discuss it, start another thread.
According to Wierwille, God-breathed means no errors or contradictions. Therefore, for his own work to be considered God-breathed, it would have to meet his own standard for it. If he was wrong about that, he could be wrong about anything.
The central point to all of our naysaying is that VPW's writings in the PFAL book isn't God breathed, and that you haven't proven at all why it is.
And yet now you try to hem and haw and indicate that you still aren't sure, even after 27 years of studying his works and you come on to this board to say that now you KNOW that what he wrote was God breathed.
Yes,...no,...yes,...no,...maybe,...I dunno.
Our "rush to judgement" is trying to get you to clearly show, by summery if need be, what it was that makes the proof that PFAL is God breathed!
-->
And there has been far more than enough discussion, research, and counter arguments done not only here, but at Waydale, CES board, and elsewhere that blows the PFAL Is God-breathed clean out of the water.
No, NO, NO! This is what I tried to explain earlier, I DON”T “agree” with Dr on the meaning of God-breathed, in the sense that I have not STUDIED that particular subject out exactly. I have a rough feel only.
You almost had me going there. The only reason you don't agree with Wierwille on his definition of "God-breathed" is that you haven't finished rationalizing it to yourself yet. The bottom line remains is that if he was right about the meaning of God breathed, then PFAL FAILS to meet that standard. Period.
quote:I resist this temptation to rush to judgement, and that’s why I dodge SOME of what your saying, or ignore it.
quote:I don’t HAVE to untangle even one on these difficulties on this thread to proceed with my PFAL mastery any more than a Bible student would have to clear up all of Google’s Bible difficulties before proceeding with their studies.
I agree. You don't have to. But if you're going to keep coming onto this thread to tell me how wrong I am, the least I expect is the courtesy of a correction. The Word is profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction. You have reproved, but offered no correction, Do your Biblical duty or shut up.
quote:Then you wrote:
“The most recently published one as of the time of VPW's death still contains errors, which you still have not addressed.”
I agree. That’s THE acceptable way of handling these kind of difficulties. I see them get cleared up in the reading with respect and mastery process, and you want me to engage in the direct confrontation with vast disrespects of the writings in question?
I'd settle for one. But you see, you accuse me of disrespecting PFAL. I do not. I respect PFAL for what it is. It is YOU who disrespects PFAL by dressing it in a quality Wierwille never intended for it. You have made it yourrrrrr preciousssss. I expect you to show me the answers to my questions, not to tell me the answers exist and leave me as an agent of Satan. More on that in a second...
quote:The way I do OCCASIONALLY directly confront any of these difficulties, Bible or PFAL, is either alone with God, or with others who WANT to see it fit.
You guys DON’T want to see it fit.
And there you are wrong, sir. We repeatedly ask you to show us how it fits, you DENY us the information and have the unmitigated GALL to accuse us of not wanting it? How DARE you? You owe ME an apology, not to mention many other people who have been so danged patiently waiting for you to provide answers. It is YOU, sir, who have declared an outright refusal to listen to any opposing point of view. Don't you DARE try to accuse us of the same when we have been waiting for you to answer any of these questions.
If you don't want to answer them, fine, that's your privilege. But to come here and accuse us of not wanting the answers is an insult, and I will not stand for it. I expect an apology.
quote:I see you as an unfit research team, and I teach readers of GS to not engage with such unfit teams.
And they all left you as soon as you said that, right?
Unfit, my butt. Address ONE ERROR. Put up or shut up, Mike. And if you're going to shut up, I won't hold it against you. It's your right. But that which thou doest, do quickly.
quote:I'm not afraid of your taunts to “explain or be befuddled!”
I never accused you of being afraid. No one with that much unmitigated gall can have such fear.
quote:I see many other options than the ones you challenge me to and I dodge with complete impunity. It’s my God given right.
You used an AWFUL lot of words to tell us you'd be dodging our questions. Fine, it is your right. I wholeheartedly agree. But I want you to know something: I think you're an unfit researcher, and I'm going to tell all my friends to ignore your posts.
-- grabs the remote away again and switches the channel back the 24 hr body soul spirit infomercial --
ughmmm -- An interesting word shift was pointed out by DD's thesis paper.
quote: "Wierwille writes "God created man in His own image. What is the image of God? John 4:24 says that God is a spirit. Therefore God's image is spirit. God created, bara spirit WITHIN man."
Using the English rendering of Genesis is a very clever altering of prepositon takes place in Wierwille's argument in order to support his preconceived theology. Gen 1:27 says God created man IN His own image. The phrase "in His own image" refers to the HOW of creatio and not to WHAT was created. The phrase means to "fashion after ro to resemble, whatever the term "image" may mean in its most full implication. However, Wierwille, uses the preposition "WITHIN" instead of "IN" thus CHANGING THE MEANING OF THE ENTIRE PHRASE. (emphasis mine) By using the word within Wierwille shifts the emphasis of the phrase from HOW man was created to WHAT the image of God is and WHERE it was created. To Wierwille "within" has to do with location therefore he writes "God created within man His own image" meaning God created spirit within man because God's image in spirit.
Concerning the original Hebrew, Wierwille violates the word order of the original language. The prefix "in" is attached to and modifies IMAGE and not MAN. By applying the preposition in or within to man WIERWILLE DISTORTS THE WORD ORDER OFTHE HEBREW LANGUAGE AND THEREFORE THE MEANING OF THE PASSAGE.
Sounds like an actual error there. Now, man may be a three part being (not debating this one way or the other at this time) but I think you need to find a different verse to teach that.
Oh, so many kind comments, so little time. I really wish I could devote more time to this thread. I work fairly long hours these days. So if there's a big gap between responses, please forgive me.
Quote
"JERRY!!!!!!
Jerry rocks. God bless you, man."
Gee thanks Raf!! You're quite a blessing yourself!
And Mike said,
" I was wondering what your philosophy is in HOW one should handle Bible contradictions, apparent or actual."
Uh...I'm not s'posed to answer that. It's Rafael's thread & he sets the rules. Besides, I've read the whole thing, so I'm well aware of where you're going with that question. The question I would pose in response is, if Dr. Weirwille says the Bible fits like a hand in a glove and the class on Power For Abundant Living gives us the keys so we can clearly understand the Bible, why shouldn't the class itself fit like a hand in a glove? Shouldn't Dr. Weirwille at least adhere to the very tenets he teaches? If these keys are so wonderful, why the heck doesn't he USEthem?
Rafael and Zixar said,
"Zixar has inadvertently pointed out another actual error. For you see, according to this statement, God is MANNA! "
Excellent point guys. Yet another factual error uncovered.
Hope said,
"Oh.. btw - Jerry, good to "see" you again. I didn't participate in your discussions way back when, but I read them with great interest. Thanks to you, too."
Thanks Hope. It sure is glad to be back into this subject matter again and to be discussing the Bible and matters fo truth with people of good character and sound minds. specially Mr. Olmeda. :)Speaking of whom, that question about how your spirit can talk to your brain when GOD cant' is a gem. I remember my fiancee (now wife) asking that very same question way back when. I didn't have a decent answer, but I faked it. Waythink; what can I say? :-)
Hey great post TW. There's a lot to consider there. I think there's a lot to study and learn regarding the nature of God being light, love, spirit, etc. Good stuff.
Okay, now I'll get back to reading. God bless eveyone.
JerryB
[This message was edited by Jbarrax on January 27, 2003 at 18:45.]
[This message was edited by Jbarrax on January 27, 2003 at 19:54.]
Welcome back dude! Remember the food fights we had on the CES board? :D-->
You said, "if Dr. Weirwille says the Bible fits like a hand in a glove and the class on Power For Abundant Living gives us the keys so we can clearly understand the Bible, why shouldn't the class itself fit like a hand in a glove? Shouldn't Dr. Weirwille at least adhere to the very tenets he teaches? If these keys are so wonderful, why the heck doesn't he USE them?"
Excellent point! Mike, wouldn't you agree? You'd think that a 'man of God' who supposedly wrote the 'God Breathed Word' in PFAL would indeed apply these golden nuggets throughout that 'God Breathed' book.
One thing I learned about what 'God breathed' is indeed when God 'breathes' out something, that thing would be perfect, as God Himself is perfect.
To illustrate my point, picture this: God the computer software developer, designing an operating system, OK? When regular human programmers develop an application or operating system, they write the code, clean up the spelling errors and syntax errors, run it thru the compiler, debug the logical errors, link the code up with other components, debug the link errors, put it all together and burn it on a master CD.
And that's just for the alpha version. To get through the beta versions, the pre-release versions and finally to the release version, they have to go through all of that over and over again, ad nauseum!
And that's for version 1, ... before they get to the 'updates', ie., bug fixes.
Yah! That's called the Microsoft Design Technique. :D-->
When God the Software Developer writes software, He sits down, types the code into the compiler -- ONCE. All of it. No logic errors. No syntax errors. Not even a typo. At all!
He then compiles it. No problems. He links it with the components. No problems. He puts it all together and burns the master CD. Boom! Done.
No need for an alpha version. No beta. No pre-release. No need to call it version 1, because there won't be any need for a version 2, version 1.1, not even a 1.0.0.1a bug fix. At all. Nada!
THAT kind of programmer will drive Bill Gates **nuts** and drive Micro$oft out of business in a week.
Now why can't a God, who created the heavens and the earth with such jaw-dropping precision, accuracy and beauty, 'God breathe' a Book that has the same perfection, hhmmm? (And there are a lot of folks who have and always will bring up points about whether or how much the Bible, in whatever version, meets that specification.)
Yet your version of 'God breathed' via PFAL means that it has to go through rewrites, spelling checks, revisions, and even after all that, still have glaring errors, both biblical and logical?
What are you accusing God of being, a Micro$oft developer? :D-->
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
208
62
95
53
Popular Days
Jan 3
56
Jan 28
53
Jan 17
52
Jan 27
46
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 208 posts
Jbarrax 62 posts
Zixar 95 posts
Mike 53 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2003
56 posts
Jan 28 2003
53 posts
Jan 17 2003
52 posts
Jan 27 2003
46 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Clear as the difference between all with a distinction and all without distinction. See, to those unaware of the circumstances that brought about this thread, I look like I'm nitpicking to prove Wier
Raf
I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether
Larry P2
And let's not forget the one about "All the women in the Kingdom belong to the King." Which proves that he was a lecherous piece of sh!t communicating his desire for a steady stream of young, gullibl
Steve Lortz
Well said, Oakspear!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike,
In this, I wholeheartedly agree. When we come to a discrepancy in the Bible, we deal with it using certain methods, procedures and principles.
Here's the problem, and precisely the derailment I am attempting to avoid:
Your premise is and has been that PFAL is God-breathed. In order for that premise to be true, PFAL must adhere to its own definition of what it means to be God-breathed. This thread has shown, repeatedly, that PFAL does not meet that standard. We have shown it with example after example after example.
Now, how do you intend to address those examples? So far, you have done so by no means except for evasion, obfuscation, "linguistic legerdemain" and shifting the terms of the discussion in order to place the Bible under the scrutiny we are placing PFAL. That's a derailment and I'll tell you why.
We can all agree that in order for PFAL to be God-breathed, it has to at the very least meet its own definition of what it is to be God-breathed, right?
Now, in order for us to agree that the Bible meets Wierwille's standard for what it means to be God-breathed, we must conclude that the Bible has no errors or contradictions.
The problem is, not everyone on this thread can or will agree with Wierwille's standard. HE must agree with himself. But we don't have to agree with him.
There is honest disagreement about what the term "God-breathed" means. But Wierwille's definition is plain and leaves no room for even ONE PREPOSITION to be out of place. Does his own written work meet that standard?
Now, if Jerry (with his definition of God-breathed) begins to answer your question about Bible contradictions (I'll save you the suspense: he has no problem with their existence), and Goey (with a similar definition) and Zixar (with a third definition) and I (with a fourth) all start answering your question, in no time flat we will have a rambling thread that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual errors in PFAL. It will be an endless debate about what it means for a scripture to be "given by inspiration of God."
This is the derailment I am trying to prevent.
You're making a huge presumption when you imply that the people on this thread (or at the Cafe) agree that the Bible is without errors or contradictions. You are holding us to a standard set by PFAL, but many of us reject PFAL's authority to set that standard.
YOU, on the other hand, hold PFAL to be "God-breathed" and even MORE reliable than the Bible "remnants," as you disrespectfully refer to the book Wierwille publicly revered.
So, adopting YOUR logic, I may fairly conclude that the Bible will have errors and discrepancies attributable to the "fact" that the scriptures are but remnants of "the Word of God." YOU, on the other hand, are the one who has "painted yourself into a corner." For while you have provided us with your very own answer as to why the Bible may contradict itself from time to time, you have given NO REASON why PFAL might do the same. And we're not talking about typos or proofreaders' mistakes. We're talking about demanding, of God's most recent and undefiled revelation, that it meet its own standards for being "God-breathed."
You keep trying to get away from that, when it is the sole underlying issue of this thread. You want to come here and accuse us of inconsistency (aka, painting ourselves into a corner), when we never claimed the "consistency" mantle for ourselves! It is a classic straw man argument. Accuse us of setting a standard, then chastise us for not meeting it. The only problem is, we never set any such standard!
Wierwille, on the other hand, set a standard for what it means to be "God-breathed." Part of that standard was that there could be no errors or contradictions. NOT ONE PREPOSITION can be out of place in PFAL or any of the collateral books in order for your premise to hold. That is the standard set in PFAL itself.
The integrity of the Bible is a separate issue, worthy of discussion, but not the point of this thread.
What the people in this thread THINK of the Bible, and how to approach its discrepancies, is a separate issue, worthy of discussion, but not the point of this thread.
This thread is about "actual errors" in PFAL. If YOU continue to contend that PFAL is "the God-breathed Word," then the burden is on YOU to explain its the errors and contradictions. You have failed to address even one.
Your continued efforts to put the Bible on trial notwithstanding, you have FAILED to derail this thread.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 27, 2003 at 13:12.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I have not seen the article. Could you summarize its relevant points?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike wrote:
If you don't think you're being rude, don't defend it.
I don't mind you placing controversial ideas on the table. I DO mind your repeated method of coming in, claiming to have an answer or approach, refusing to share it, and then claiming to have no time to post the information you've spent the last five, six, 27 or 28 years gathering.
Address a (supposed) actual error and let's discuss it (you seem to be on track with that in your "private interpretation" post). If you want to attack the integrity of the Bible remnants, start another thread. I'm sure plenty of people would be happy to engage you in that discussion.
But if you want to discuss how to address what you laughably call "apparent" errors in PFAL, then I'm all ears.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Reluctantly,
the “official” minority voice
accepts the invitation back into the fray.
*************************************
Rafael, you wrote:
“The problem is, not everyone on this thread can or will agree on what it means to be God-breathed. There is honest disagreement about what that term means.”
I’ll drink to that!
Rafael, HONEST! I’ve been trying to think of a way to say the same thing of me!!!
In my posts, I can’t remember how I myself defined “God-breathed” OR EVEN IF I DID give a formal solid definition.
I think my definition of it here at GS ...(I haven’t checked the record, MY record here at GS - yet)... I think my definition of it here was DEFINED FOR ME by Research Geek and Alfakat MONTHS before I started posting.
When I started posting, I think I avoided being detected as the mystery ghoul that RG and Alfa portrayed me as last fall. When, after a few days (I think) of posting suddenly and unceremoniously I was UNMASKED! ....I threw down my disguise mask and sword and cast myself on the mercy of the court.
.... (I fully expected the unmasking scene, I just didn’t know WHEN it would happen in the play)....
From then on I went along with your (and other GSers) supposed understanding of my exact definition of “God-breathed” and tried to smooth it out as we went. I didn’t really CARE if you all got it right and formal. I didn’t come here to formally define anything or prove anything.
My bag, my ADMITTED agenda is to make certain lost elements in Dr’s tape/print record come back to the center stage for PFAL grads where I think they belong, and where GS readers can pick and choose from the WHOLE spectrum of post TWI thought hee in these post progressive times.
I could be wrong on some of this, but I think I got sort of roped into my definition of “God-breathed,” and I just haven’t had the time, inspiration or open door to admit this clearly, and totally straighten it out. I’m still a student of PFAL and I haven’t really checked this topic out in detail. Maybe someday...
Thanks for the open door, Rafael. Maybe this will help us find a little more shared ground.
I think SOME of our disagreements are based on pure mis-communication.
Now there’s a little less.
So my main bag is the record, my sideline here is the logic. That’s all I have time for now. I know some of you want all logic, and rely on memory instead the record, but that’s not very efficient. My orientation is a little different, but I think we can respect each other’s chosen stances.
As for these things in the record, to some degree Dr hid things, and to some degree the adversary did some hiding too. The difference is Dr’s had a built in self-interpreter due to the hand of God upon Dr’s efforts, and God is now bringing these back to OUR attention and the logic is self contained for those who care to examine them carefully and respectfully. The adversary still tries to hide them, a kind of anti-interpreter.
There are lots more of these hidden items in the record, and I’ve sent a few samples to a FEW of you posters here. You have my permission to discuss here what I sent you, but I am incorporating your suggestions into a next draft. I would prefer if we post the UPDATED version of what I sent you two or three GSers.
I don’t mind talking about definitions or proofs, but I’m pretty much done with that approach after having exhausted its benefits years ago. It was not a wasted 27 year effort, it’s just DONE! I now have a five year adventure going with quite a few other grads scattered around the country (one or two post here) in finding these things Dr hid in the record. I’m just one of the first to start making them known publicly.
****************************************************************************
Many elements and implications of Dr’s record have direct application to MANY threads here, both in subject matter AND seeing that this record itself is on the center stage here as the main punching doll you all have propped up! That’s why I feel free to pop in at times, and soon should try another thread origination.
****************************************************************************
So hurrumph to you all! (On this one thing)
And now, please pardon my interruption, ladies, gentlemen, and persons.
The minority voice recedes.
Carry on!
.
.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
Regarding “private interpretation” and Earl Burton’s article you wrote:
“I have not seen the article. Could you summarize its relevant points?”
I haven’t read it in 20 years, but I see my copy has lots of notes in that one article, so I went at it, but it ALL leaked out. Use it or lose it.
I can xerox it and sent you a paper copy. OK? Are there any people down there who have copies? I heared you don’t have JCNG too. I might be able to help there.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You got "roped into" NOTHING.
In calling PFAL God-breathed, which you have, you submit yourself to its definition of "God-breathed." If you do not accept PFAL's definition of God-breathed, then you can allow for the existence of actual errors in PFAL without demanding of it the perfection it demands of God's Word.
I would find that viewpoint silly, but then, some would find my own viewpoints silly. Food fight.
But you haven't done that. You deny that these errors are "actual" by consistently referring to them as "apparent." As long as you continue to do that, the purpose of the thread remains self-evident.
Are you trying to say that Wierwille was WRONG when he wrote that one preposition out of place would cause your Bible to crumble to pieces? If you will agree that there might be something in PFAL that is wrong, a flat out actual error, then there's no need to continue the discussion.
Whether you intended to or not, you just called me a tool of the adversary. Not that I'm offended, mind you. I think you're an idolater. Food fight.
On the contrary, you DO mind talking about definitions and proofs, as evidenced by your failure and refusal to do so. You say you have exhausted the benefits of doing so, but in my opinion, the only thing you have done is abandoned God's Word for idolatry, for a position that is so unstable that a fair conversation is impossible, as you are constantly shifting the terms of the discussion. Using many many words, you say very very little.
I just hope that enough people can see the foolishness of exalting the flawed works of a flawed man over the Bible. If you can convince a few sycophantic idolaters of your position, so be it. But it's no guarantee for truth, as LCM found out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Contact me by e-mail and I will be happy to give you my home address, Mike.
I do have a copy of all Wierwille's books. I just didn't have them at work with me one day when I posted. Someone must have been confused when I wrote that, but I DO have that book, and all the others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
If the "minority voice" would spend half as many paragraphs on directly addressing the topic as he does on rehashing peripheral matters he's already posted numerous times, it might help others take his views a little more seriously than what they find in the average fortune cookie, which, although banal, does have the greatly-admirable property of wrapping its entire message into a small enough space that one only wastes a tiny fraction of one's life on reading and then discarding it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Zix,
I just saw you as I'm ready to post to Raf. You're next. I think?
Rafael, you wrote: “But if you want to discuss how to address what you laughably
call "apparent" errors in PFAL, then I'm all ears.”
I do go for the laughs at times, but certainly not for every point.
The way I approach “difficulties” in PFAL is the EXACT SAME general way I approach “difficulties” in the received texts of the Bible.
I assume there’s no problem in the originals.
I assume the difficulties either lie in (A) the reader’s interpretation or in (B) in the “middlemen” like proofreaders and printers. Each of these categories have multiple entries and subdivisions.
Category A is vastly more likely for PFAL, whereas both A and B are heavily utilized for Bible texts.
The net result of my working these things, and I invite others to try it you’ll like it, is this set of principles I feel safest in betting my life on:
1.
PFAL teaches me to love the Bible as it was originally given.
PFAL teaches me HOW to fix some of modern Bible version errors.
2.
The number of errors that have crept into PFAL printed texts is VASTLY less that the amount of error that’s crept into the Bible texts and translations and interpretations.
3.
Bible versions like KJV are absolutely necessary to grasp PFA.L.
PFAL are absolutely necessary to grasp Bible versions like KJV.
4.
Therefore I employ very similar techniques to deal with difficulties I may at times have with both PFAL and Bibles.
5.
I have a fun 20 year project, usually in total hibernation, going to reconcile James with Galatians. I’ve at one time considered 10 different schemes to neatly tie up THAT difficulty. AT NO TIME however, have I considered cutting James out of the God-breathed (undefined as it is) canon to make this reconcilliation.
Did you know Martin Luther ALMOST did this with his German translation of the Bible? So legend goes, anyway. Instead of nearly saved, martin Luther was almost drowned!
I wonder if anyone else would ever consider treating the Bible that way?
.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf rote:
Contact me by e-mail and...
Ok. I’ll take it with me to work. I have to leave soon. It’s not morning here anymore. Yikes, I’m four hours late for work. Oh well, that’s the benefits of being self unemployed.
I gotta get going soon. I haven't even eated breakfast yet, take a shower, and check in one last time at GS befor dashing out the door to Kinkos.
Zixar rote:
If the "minority voice" would spend half as many paragraphs on directly addressing the topic as he does on rehashing peripheral matters he's already posted numerous times, it might help others take his views a little more seriously than what they find in the average fortune cookie, which, although banal, does have the greatly-admirable property of wrapping its entire message into a small enough space that one only wastes a tiny fraction of one's life on reading and then discarding it.
Ok. I’m working on it. How’s this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh my God! A substantive post!
I should shut up and declare victory right now, just for getting a substantive post out of the guy.
Of course, it did not address a single actual error in PFAL, nor did it address the premise that in order for PFAL to be God-breathed, it has to meet its own definition of "God-breathed," but shoot, we actually got some substance out of Mike! Yeeeeeehaw!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
There ... is a God!!
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
troubledwine
Sorry to interupt. Ok I'm still on the image of God being spirit and formed made created.
It's also interesting that the word formed is also used regarding the spirit of man:
Zech 12:1 "The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth (yatsar) the spirit of man within him."
Yatsar is supposed to be what God did to the body of man not the soul or spirit...
Dr. Franz Delitzsch a renowned OT scholar had this to say about Isaiah 43:7
From what I am studying here this section does not refer to the days of creation. A particular key to understanding the point God is making is just taking the time to back up a few verses to Isaiah 43:1:
"But now thus saith the LORD that created (BARA) thee, O Jacob, and he that formed (YATSAR) thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called [thee] by thy name; thou [art] mine. "
As you can see ASAH is left out here. If you go back and read Isaiah 42 all the way through the end of 43 you will see the point God is making. As Dr. Delitzch summarized summarized "to glorify Himself in it, and that he might be glorified by it. They form a climax, " This is not a section that deals with creation. The point is ASAH! That is the big buildup in the context! God wanted them complete or perfected but most of the time they weren't living up to their side of the bargain!! Read the context and look for the buildup.
As I was saying earlier if you are going to teach the image of God is spirit and formed made created these aren't the verses to do it with.
edited to clean up spelling and repeat phrases
[This message was edited by troubledwine on January 27, 2003 at 18:32.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Since you hold PFAL to be "God-breathed," I would expect nothing less of you. We presume you and Wierwille agree on the meaning of God-breathed. However, you do not have the right to expect us to do the same, as we do not agree with each other on the definition of "God-breathed."
The PFAL book we have is not the original. The original actually contained more errors. The most recently published one as of the time of VPW's death still contains errors, which you still have not addressed. I presume for the sake of this discussion that it is only the most recently edited version of Wierwille's book, circa 1982, that you would consider "God-breathed." Correct me if I am mistaken.
That is PRECISELY why I deliberately sought to free this list of errors of interpretation. The errors we have listed are all actual errors that cannot be attributed to interpretation OR to your so-called "middlemen."
My problem with your approach is that you still fail to show how it resolves even ONE of the actual errors we posted. The problem is not in your approach, but in the underlying premise. In the case of PFAL, the error is in the actual writing, intent and doctrine of the writer. Its author is not God, but a man who made errors. It doesn't disqualify EVERYTHING he wrote, but it disqualifies that which he got wrong.
The bottom line is that you refuse to believe Wierwille ever got anything wrong in print (in the PFAL book and collaterals). THAT PREMISE IS FALSE. That is our basic disagreement.
You're right. It's highly unlikely that we're going to see enough proofreader errors to cause major problems in PFAL. Of the actual errors we've listed, which you've still failed to address, NOT ONE can be attributed to a proofreader error. And I contend that not one can be attributed to an error of interpretation (okay, maybe one or two). But in order for your position to hold, ALL THE ACTUAL ERRORS WE'VE POSTED must be attributable to interpretation. The vast majority are not.
If you're betting your life on these, remind me not to stand too close to you.
:)-->
That's two points. But I'll let that pass. I agree with both statements and I agree that they embody, perhaps, PFAL's most lasting value (for me, anyway).
Again, I agree. The errors in PFAL are inherent to the text. They did not need to creep in. The author put them there on purpose, not realizing he was wrong.
Again, that's two statements, not one. The first is defensible. The second, reprehensible. You cannot understand PFAL without the Bible. But you sure can understand the Bible without PFAL. We could argue this for years, but you are so entrenched in your idolatry on that subject that you've already repeatedly declared a lack of willingness to listen to any alternative viewpoint. So I'll save my breath for that inflatable date I've got stashed next to my pirate copy of Christian Family and Sex Sex Sex.
You said that already. I have yet to see you employ your techniques to ANY of the actual errors on this thread (save for a pathetic attempt to explain the Nathan record).
I'm starting to wonder if you were being honest when you spoke of monitoring these message boards ever since Waydale. If you had, you would know that Jerry and I had a very long and protracted debate about this very subject. The reconciliation of James and Galatians is a fascinating project. I find it most enjoyable. It should take you more than 20 years. I know it will take me at least as long. But it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. If you decide to start another thread on the subject, I know there are plenty of people who would be happy to share their observations with you. Fascinating, fascinating subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I corresponded briefly with Jerry when he first appeared on Waydale. I double checked his website just today. It does look like a fascinating read, but it also looks in skimming to solve the problem by cutting out James. That's why I asked Jerry to tell me plain.
[This message was edited by Mike on January 30, 2003 at 22:34.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Troubledwine:
You were not interrupting. Your comments are actually more on topic than mine. Mike and I are discussing how to approach the errors identified on this thread. But you're discussing an actual error. So there was no need to apologize for "interrupting" the discussion by returning to the main thread topic.
That said, you made some good observations. Wierwille's insistence that the body was formed, the soul was made and the spirit was created just crumbles on close examination, doesn't it? The bible says the spirit was formed, the spirit was made, and the spirit was created (actually, does it ever say the spirit was created)?
I thik Wierwille's definition of "made" is an actual error too, especially as he distinguished it from "create." Spirit existed before God placed it in Adam. How do we know this? Because God is Spirit. So are the angels. SO there was a substance existing of which the thing made consists, which is Wierwille's definition for "made."
Wierwille's definition of "made" is so convoluted that I don't know that it can be nailed down long enough to call it an actual error. Who was it that used the analogy? "It's like nailing Jello to a wall."
Further, remember how Wierwille said "formed, made and created" CANNOT be synonymous, or words have no meaning? He said the same of "body, soul and spirit." God uses precise terms to mean precise things, and they cnnot be synonymous, period.
I think a strong case can be made that, Biblically, made and created are synonymous.
Meanwhile, he has no problem saying "the promise of the father" = "power from on high" = "baptized with the Holy Ghost."
Had they all occurred in one verse, Wierwille would have had conniptions and tried to explain how they couldn't be the same, or language would be useless as a form of communication!
My, he did exaggerate, didn't he?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It's TWO, TWO
TWO THREADS IN ONE!
Rafael,
This is my last shot for today. You wrote: “Since you hold PFAL to be "God-breathed," I would expect nothing less of you. We presume you and Wierwille agree on the meaning of God-breathed.”
No, NO, NO! This is what I tried to explain earlier, I DON”T “agree” with Dr on the meaning of God-breathed, in the sense that I have not STUDIED that particular subject out exactly. I have a rough feel only.
I’m mostly into READING these books, not writing about them with great precision and formality.
I haven’t studied this out to know how exactly I’ve lined up my rough feel with what is written. This takes time. Maybe a whole year!
I’m not qualified right here and now to extract at once ALL the places where Dr uses that phrase and/or defines it. I’d have to gear up to a project like that and spend weeks just looking for associated key words to search for. I’d need to have ALL those places documented before even STARTING to work the subject. You guys want to dredge up from memory what you THINK are all the pertinent passages of where Dr discusses something, and run from there with it RIGHT NOW!
I’m trying by example to teach that this is the proper way to handle both Bible and PFAL difficulties.
I resist this temptation to rush to judgement, and that’s why I dodge SOME of what your saying, or ignore it. I don’t HAVE to untangle even one on these difficulties on this thread to proceed with my PFAL mastery any more than a Bible student would have to clear up all of Google’s Bible difficulties before proceeding with their studies.
Neither do any of you all NEED to have all these difficulties cleared up before accepting the challenge to come back to the pure written PFAL, minus all the trappings, minus all the people bs, minus all the things that hurt us, and we can do it up right. We’ve all only winged it, and I am reporting that there is an exciting adventure for those who check this out more carefully.
Then you wrote:
“The most recently published one as of the time of VPW's death still contains errors, which you still have not addressed.”
I agree. That’s THE acceptable way of handling these kind of difficulties. I see them get cleared up in the reading with respect and mastery process, and you want me to engage in the direct confrontation with vast disrespects of the writings in question?
No way!
The way I do OCCASIONALLY directly confront any of these difficulties, Bible or PFAL, is either alone with God, or with others who WANT to see it fit.
You guys DON’T want to see it fit. I see you as an unfit research team, and I teach readers of GS to not engage with such unfit teams. I’m also teaching by example that readers and posters of GS who want to look into the challenge Dr gave us at the end of his life of mastering PFAL, they need not be afraid of the techniques used on this thread, techniques I think are unreasonable and unfruitful.
I’m not afraid of your taunts to “explain or be befuddled!”
I see many other options than the ones you challenge me to and I dodge with complete impunity. It’s my God given right.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't know if Jerry's views have changed in the last two years, but I can sum up his statements from way back when.
The conflicting statements in Galatians and James led him to believe first that James had no place in the canon of scripture, and later, that James has as much right to be in the canon as Galatians. Ultimately, he allowed that the Bible CAN contradict itself.
1. This leads to an important question: Can the Bible contradict itself and still be the Word of God? Some would say yes. Others would say no. I have no doubt whatsoever that Wierwille would say no.
Therefore, since this thread addresses the view that Wierwille's works are God-breathed, we are bound in this discussion by Wierwille's definition of God-breathed. If he was wrong about that, then we have to agree that his works are NOT on par with the Bible according to his own definition.
That's why I was trying to block your question to Jerry. It would have led to a derailment of the thread on a substantive issue deserving of its own thread. We've had some frivolous derailments before, but they were frivolous, and it was relatively easy to get back on topic. It would be VERY difficult to get back on topic once the issue of Bible contradictions became the subject of discussion. That's why I repeatedly insisted that if you want to discuss it, start another thread.
According to Wierwille, God-breathed means no errors or contradictions. Therefore, for his own work to be considered God-breathed, it would have to meet his own standard for it. If he was wrong about that, he could be wrong about anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Mike!
The central point to all of our naysaying is that VPW's writings in the PFAL book isn't God breathed, and that you haven't proven at all why it is.
And yet now you try to hem and haw and indicate that you still aren't sure, even after 27 years of studying his works and you come on to this board to say that now you KNOW that what he wrote was God breathed.
Yes,...no,...yes,...no,...maybe,...I dunno.
Our "rush to judgement" is trying to get you to clearly show, by summery if need be, what it was that makes the proof that PFAL is God breathed!
And there has been far more than enough discussion, research, and counter arguments done not only here, but at Waydale, CES board, and elsewhere that blows the PFAL Is God-breathed clean out of the water.
Whatever!
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You almost had me going there. The only reason you don't agree with Wierwille on his definition of "God-breathed" is that you haven't finished rationalizing it to yourself yet. The bottom line remains is that if he was right about the meaning of God breathed, then PFAL FAILS to meet that standard. Period.
You've dodged some. You've ignored others. You've addressed none.
I agree. You don't have to. But if you're going to keep coming onto this thread to tell me how wrong I am, the least I expect is the courtesy of a correction. The Word is profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction. You have reproved, but offered no correction, Do your Biblical duty or shut up.
I'd settle for one. But you see, you accuse me of disrespecting PFAL. I do not. I respect PFAL for what it is. It is YOU who disrespects PFAL by dressing it in a quality Wierwille never intended for it. You have made it yourrrrrr preciousssss. I expect you to show me the answers to my questions, not to tell me the answers exist and leave me as an agent of Satan. More on that in a second...
And there you are wrong, sir. We repeatedly ask you to show us how it fits, you DENY us the information and have the unmitigated GALL to accuse us of not wanting it? How DARE you? You owe ME an apology, not to mention many other people who have been so danged patiently waiting for you to provide answers. It is YOU, sir, who have declared an outright refusal to listen to any opposing point of view. Don't you DARE try to accuse us of the same when we have been waiting for you to answer any of these questions.
If you don't want to answer them, fine, that's your privilege. But to come here and accuse us of not wanting the answers is an insult, and I will not stand for it. I expect an apology.
And they all left you as soon as you said that, right?
Unfit, my butt. Address ONE ERROR. Put up or shut up, Mike. And if you're going to shut up, I won't hold it against you. It's your right. But that which thou doest, do quickly.
I never accused you of being afraid. No one with that much unmitigated gall can have such fear.
You used an AWFUL lot of words to tell us you'd be dodging our questions. Fine, it is your right. I wholeheartedly agree. But I want you to know something: I think you're an unfit researcher, and I'm going to tell all my friends to ignore your posts.
Yeah, real mature there, Meek Master Mike.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
troubledwine
-- grabs the remote away again and switches the channel back the 24 hr body soul spirit infomercial --
ughmmm -- An interesting word shift was pointed out by DD's thesis paper.
Sounds like an actual error there. Now, man may be a three part being (not debating this one way or the other at this time) but I think you need to find a different verse to teach that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Oh, so many kind comments, so little time. I really wish I could devote more time to this thread. I work fairly long hours these days. So if there's a big gap between responses, please forgive me.
Quote
"JERRY!!!!!!
Jerry rocks. God bless you, man."
Gee thanks Raf!! You're quite a blessing yourself!
And Mike said,
" I was wondering what your philosophy is in HOW one should handle Bible contradictions, apparent or actual."
Uh...I'm not s'posed to answer that. It's Rafael's thread & he sets the rules. Besides, I've read the whole thing, so I'm well aware of where you're going with that question. The question I would pose in response is, if Dr. Weirwille says the Bible fits like a hand in a glove and the class on Power For Abundant Living gives us the keys so we can clearly understand the Bible, why shouldn't the class itself fit like a hand in a glove? Shouldn't Dr. Weirwille at least adhere to the very tenets he teaches? If these keys are so wonderful, why the heck doesn't he USEthem?
Rafael and Zixar said,
"Zixar has inadvertently pointed out another actual error. For you see, according to this statement, God is MANNA! "
Excellent point guys. Yet another factual error uncovered.
Hope said,
"Oh.. btw - Jerry, good to "see" you again. I didn't participate in your discussions way back when, but I read them with great interest. Thanks to you, too."
Thanks Hope. It sure is glad to be back into this subject matter again and to be discussing the Bible and matters fo truth with people of good character and sound minds. specially Mr. Olmeda. :)Speaking of whom, that question about how your spirit can talk to your brain when GOD cant' is a gem. I remember my fiancee (now wife) asking that very same question way back when. I didn't have a decent answer, but I faked it. Waythink; what can I say? :-)
Hey great post TW. There's a lot to consider there. I think there's a lot to study and learn regarding the nature of God being light, love, spirit, etc. Good stuff.
Okay, now I'll get back to reading. God bless eveyone.
JerryB
[This message was edited by Jbarrax on January 27, 2003 at 18:45.]
[This message was edited by Jbarrax on January 27, 2003 at 19:54.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Jerry,
Welcome back dude! Remember the food fights we had on the CES board?
:D-->
You said, "if Dr. Weirwille says the Bible fits like a hand in a glove and the class on Power For Abundant Living gives us the keys so we can clearly understand the Bible, why shouldn't the class itself fit like a hand in a glove? Shouldn't Dr. Weirwille at least adhere to the very tenets he teaches? If these keys are so wonderful, why the heck doesn't he USE them?"
Excellent point! Mike, wouldn't you agree? You'd think that a 'man of God' who supposedly wrote the 'God Breathed Word' in PFAL would indeed apply these golden nuggets throughout that 'God Breathed' book.
One thing I learned about what 'God breathed' is indeed when God 'breathes' out something, that thing would be perfect, as God Himself is perfect.
To illustrate my point, picture this: God the computer software developer, designing an operating system, OK? When regular human programmers develop an application or operating system, they write the code, clean up the spelling errors and syntax errors, run it thru the compiler, debug the logical errors, link the code up with other components, debug the link errors, put it all together and burn it on a master CD.
And that's just for the alpha version. To get through the beta versions, the pre-release versions and finally to the release version, they have to go through all of that over and over again, ad nauseum!
And that's for version 1, ... before they get to the 'updates', ie., bug fixes.
Yah! That's called the Microsoft Design Technique.
:D-->
When God the Software Developer writes software, He sits down, types the code into the compiler -- ONCE. All of it. No logic errors. No syntax errors. Not even a typo. At all!
He then compiles it. No problems. He links it with the components. No problems. He puts it all together and burns the master CD. Boom! Done.
No need for an alpha version. No beta. No pre-release. No need to call it version 1, because there won't be any need for a version 2, version 1.1, not even a 1.0.0.1a bug fix. At all. Nada!
THAT kind of programmer will drive Bill Gates **nuts** and drive Micro$oft out of business in a week.
Now why can't a God, who created the heavens and the earth with such jaw-dropping precision, accuracy and beauty, 'God breathe' a Book that has the same perfection, hhmmm? (And there are a lot of folks who have and always will bring up points about whether or how much the Bible, in whatever version, meets that specification.)
Yet your version of 'God breathed' via PFAL means that it has to go through rewrites, spelling checks, revisions, and even after all that, still have glaring errors, both biblical and logical?
What are you accusing God of being, a Micro$oft developer?
:D-->
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.