Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
Raf

Actual Errors in PFAL

Recommended Posts

Geez. Read this:

quote:
Relative Pronouns

You can use a relative pronoun to link one phrase or clause to another phrase or clause. The relative pronouns are "who," "whom," "that," and "which." The compounds "whoever," "whomever," and "whichever" are also relative pronouns.

You can use the relative pronouns "who" and "whoever" to refer to the subject of a clause or sentence, and "whom" and "whomever" to refer to the objects of a verb, a verbal or a preposition.

In each of the following sentences, the highlighted word is a relative pronoun.

You may invite whomever you like to the party.

The relative pronoun "whomever" is the direct object of the compound verb "may invite".


Note that "whomever" is a relative pronoun that has no antecedent, because it certainly does not reference the only preceding pronoun, "You".

Or consider the following grammatically-correct sentence, that has a nonetheless-ambiguous antecedent for its relative pronoun.

"We spoke to the woman and the man who danced."

The antecedent is either "the man" or "the woman and the man", but the ambiguity cannot be resolved within the context of the sentence. Therefore, the antecedent of the relative pronoun is not definite. This also invalidates Wierwille's statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you include the collateral books, you may find P.77 Volume III studies in abundant living interesting: "When Israel disobeyed and married Cain's progeny, they brought disaster to themselves." Funny, Cain's progeny was wiped out in the flood. Best Regards..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You may invite whomever you like to the party" does not contain a relative pronoun. The objective pronoun whomever, as used in that sentence, is not a relative pronoun.

*****

From http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=relative_pronoun

Definitions of relative pronoun:

noun: a pronoun (as `that' or `which' or `who') that introduces a relative clause [here] referring to some antecedent.

*****

Every relative pronoun is a pronoun, but not every pronoun is a relative pronoun in every usage.

Without a relevant relative clause, the relevant pronoun is not relative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if that is not enough: "And Ahab, Jeroboams's son..." Abab was the son of Omri. best regards..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Hammeroni:

And if that is not enough: "And Ahab, Jeroboams's son..." (page 113, Studies in Abundant Living volume III). Abab was the son of Omri. best regards..


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pronoun "who" is either interrogative or relative.

From Dictionary.com

quote:
who

Who, pron. [Possess. whose; object. Whom.] 1. Originally, an interrogative pronoun, later, a relative pronoun also; -- used always substantively, and either as singular or plural. See the Note under What, pron.,

1. As interrogative pronouns, who and whom ask the question: What or which person or persons? Who and whom, as relative pronouns (in the sense of that), are properly used of persons (corresponding to which, as applied to things), but are sometimes, less properly and now rarely, used of animals, plants, etc. Who and whom, as compound relatives, are also used especially of persons, meaning the person that; the persons that; the one that; whosoever. ``Let who will be President.'' --Macaulay.


The same applies to the other relatives, whom, what, which, whoever, whomever, etc.

None of my examples use it in the interrogative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zixar,

I have found several websites indicating that whomever in "You may invite whomever you like to the party" is a relative pronoun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zixar,

You were correct, and will hang from my rope some other day.

*****

From here:

A noun clause may begin with an indefinite relative pronoun -that, what, whatever, who, which, whoever, whichever. A [sic] indefinite relative pronoun does not have an antecedent in its sentence.

Example

He told me what he wanted.

*****

And from over there:

WHAT IS A RELATIVE PRONOUN?

Relative Pronouns link two shorter sentences together to form one longer sentence by allowing us to insert a relative clause (the second idea) inside of the main clause. A definite relative pronoun has an antecedent, something to which it refers.

English example:

I bought the car. The car was expensive.

The car (which I bought) was expensive.

"Which I bought" is the relative clause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zixar, Cynic: your discussion is fascinating. I assure you that if I had tried to list this as an actual error, I would have provoked a similar argument. I think its best that these discussions take place before the error is listed, rather than after. I appreciate the time you both put into it.

Excath: this is not "seriously a doctrinal thread." It is, however, serious. The point of the thread is to point to objective errors in PFAL: errors upon which all reasonable people can agree. The fact that "thoroughly" and "throughly" are synonyms is an objective fact. It's not the result of a different interpretation of some archaic word. Wierwille was simply wrong to say that there's a difference between the two words.

Remember, ex, that Wierwille wrote "if any other word had been used" other than "pros" in John 1:1, the whole Bible would crumble. That means he set a VERY low standard for what would disqualify a document as "The Word of God." Wierwille's works contain many such examples, and this thread is a way of identifying some of them. Contrary to what some people may think, we actually spend a good deal of time trying to figure out how to keep items OFF the list, resulting in some items staying off the list even though we are reasonably certain that they are errors. But we're not looking for reasonable certainty. We're looking for "2+2=5," errors that we're absolutely certain are errors.

Being human, sometimes we will be mistaken. I doubt, highly, that we were mistaken 33 times. I have little doubt that more of the errors we've listed will be resolved. But there's just no way ALL of them will be. And as long as ONE ERROR remains, then PFAL is not the Word of God.

If it's worth your time, stick around and help us out. You're certainly welcome to. But I'd understand if you have other things on your plate. icon_smile.gif:)-->

Mr. Hammeroni: you got in hte groove right away. Welcome.

quote:
"When Israel disobeyed and married Cain's progeny, they brought disaster to themselves." Funny, Cain's progeny was wiped out in the flood.

I think the full context of Wierwille's statement is necessary:

quote:
The sons of God, the believers, came out of the Seth line, the righteous ones. The daughters of men, the unbelievers, came out of the line of Cain, the unrighteous. God as their Father advised the children of Israel, Seth's progeny, to marry only the righteous. When Israel disobeyed and married Cain's progeny, they brought disaster to themselves.

Now, once again, let's attempt to give Wierwille every benefit of the doubt:

Continuing to read the section, we see that Wierwille does indeed change the subject from the offspring of Seth to begin discussing the children of Israel. At first I thought this was an error, as there were no "children of Israel" at the time of Genesis 6, the verses Wierwille had just cited. But no, he changed the subject.

On to Hammeroni's statement: Cain's progeny was wiped out in the flood. The children of Israel, a post-flood people, could not possibly have married Cain's progeny.

Could Wierwille have been using the term "Cain's progeny" figuratively, to mean unbelievers? Could anyone counter that argument? I leave it up to you.

Next:

quote:
And if that is not enough: "And Ahab, Jeroboams's son..." (page 113, Studies in Abundant Living volume III). Abab was the son of Omri.

You really don't want this to be easy, do you?

Okay, Ahab, Ahab, Ahab. Ah, here it is:

Yes, Ahab was the son of Omri and the husband of Jezebel. Now, Jeroboam preceded both, but I don't see that Ahab was of Jeroboam's line. If he was, then the term "Jeroboam's son" is a shortcut, the way Jesus is the Son of David. Further research is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rafael, I should have included a little more information with my post. I Kings 15:29 says about

Baasha who seceded Jeroboam's son Nadab: "he left not to Jeroboam any that breathed, until he had destroyed him, according to the saying of the Lord, which He spake by his servant Ahijah the Shilonite." Jeroboam's bloodline was erased from history. It is impossible that Ahab could be his offspring. We could honestly say that Ahab was a successor of Jeroboam in the line of the kings of Israel, but not his offspring. I Kings 16:16 says that Omri was captain over the army of Israel during Baasha's reign, nothing is said about Omri's genealogy, but it could not have been through Jeroboam. It would be hard to believe that Baasha would destroy Jeroboam's offspring and keep one to be the head of the army.

Best Regards..

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rafael,

Here I am on one of my rare reading expeditions to this thread, and now posting. BUT, I MUST get to work soon, so have only a minute to share.

The little I did have a chance to see seemed pretty well done.

You wrote: "Could Wierwille have been using the term "Cain's progeny" figuratively, to mean unbelievers? Could anyone counter that argument? I leave it up to you."

This is one of the first lines I would check. The idea of us being Abraham's seed or progeny by believing is a VERY big fugure of speech in the epistles.

That Dr was bringing a converse of this figure is much more likely than him trying (and incorrectly) giving out timeline information.

The figure of unbelief being like or related to genetics is a profitable line of teaching, and Dr does this much more overtly in the little "Jeremiah" booklet he wrote for limited distribution.

For him to make a move in the direction of timeline details and then blow it BOTH don't fit for me.

I just wanted to compliment and encourage any work that achieves a fit in these areas that I can.

I still caution that these things can take a lot of time and require a lot of reading to be thorough.

My time is going to be very limited in the next week (April 15th tax time approacheth), and I don't have a habit of coming here, so please pardon me if I fail to respond to any response to this.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,

Your approval, coming as it does after months of disingenuous and ignorant attacks on our character, means nothing to me at this point.

Now, as regards the substance of your post: I don't think Wierwlle meant "spiritual" progeny when he said "Cain's progeny." I think he blew it. But what I think is very different than the cold declaration, "this is an error." So I'm inclined to not pursue it.

However, at first reading, Mr. Hammeroni appears to have pointed out a bona fide error. In no way, shape or form was Ahab Jeroboam's son. You may try to hide behind the "spiritual son" argument on that one, but I don't see how you can do that honestly. Wierwille is making no spiritual statement in this paragraph, and his uses of terms "father," "son" and "grandfather" are all five-senses in nature. It looks like you'd have to bend over backwards, to use your language, to fail to recognize this as an error.

Ah, but I am still willing to give it more time and research. Thanks, Mr. Hammeroni. I think this is a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rafael, it was long ago when I was an innie that I saw this, but I knew it would be wasted breath to bring it up. Who would have been willing to change all of those volumes on account of little old me! Best regards..

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rafael,

There’s probably a bit more anticipation than realization in my approval.

I can only track with one AE at a time. Not only is this a personal preference of mine, but I think it a sound move all respectful PFAL students should follow in working AEs. The preponderance of PFAL data in a students’ head should be the great number of things that easily fit, and give God glory, and inspire us to more worth endeavors, and etc.

To have as the preponderance in your fore-mind a plethora of jokes, snide remarks, and overall negative attitudes toward Dr while working many many AEs simultaneously reminds me of the “Three Stooges Meet China Syndrome.” You’re just digging yourselves in a hole.

Here's something I forgot to post this morning here about progeny.

There was a stunningly odd statement Dr is REPORTED to have made. I have not yet heard the tape of this, but I have heard very similar verbal reports from memory by first hand witnesses. I’m talking about where Dr said something to the effect that the whole ministry rests on the believing-action of his family and/or grandchildren. I think it was twice I heard the word “grandchildren.”

Now here’s where that thread I’m doing on the Natural/Factual versus the Spiritually/True begins to be of help. If Dr meant naturally/factually his FAMILY and GRAND CHILDREN are going to “carry” the ministry by their natural/factual believing, then it looks like that ain’t happening, and it’s getting less and less likely the case it’ll ever happen without some kind of a miracle that the family in question is not asking too much for... I think?

However, I’ve looked a little into this possibility:

Dr meant, when he used the terms FAMILY and GRAND CHILDREN, his spiritual family, his spiritually grand children, his children who were spiritually grand, connected not by DNA, but by spiritual believing like Abraham and his non-DNA progeny of believers. Then this “prophecy” would be right on the money in that he’s then saying it’s OUTSIDE the DNA-connections that the ministry would flourish.

Now, I said I don’t have the tape. So this is strictly an interim theory on this one very odd remark of Dr’s, and not something I usually want to post without several caveats. The reason I chose to prematurely post this is because I wanted to demonstrate that checking the natural/factual versus the spiritually/true dichotomy is a VERY useful tool, once it’s details are learned, in working AEs.

Now, IF this rickety new theory is true, then it’s one more place where Dr made a big deal about the progeny-believing thing. It lends more weight to the possibility that in the “Cain’s progeny” being of believing bonds, not DNA. That would be believing in the wrong god, or spiritual-believing progeny.

One more reason I tent to interpret Dr’s stunningly odd remark to be about BELIEVING based progeny is how he threw this remark out like a monkey wrench into the clockworks. He was smart in appraising his audience in how much they were understanding him. It’s not like him to say something where he accidentally leaves everyone out in the ozone. He would know if the immediate and long range contexts at that event were rich enough to support such a stunningly odd remark... and he would know if they were NOT. According to all accounts, they were not. So he deliberately threw in the monkey wrench to break the clockworks.

Why would he do that? To wake us up! I’ll bet he waited for hours after that event to see if anyone would ask him what he meant about it. I posted the other day, a few typical ways we all were receiving Dr in those days. Everyone probably blew it off.

caveat: I’M GUESSING. If anyone knows, please speak up.

There are many places in the record from 1982 to ’85 where I’ve found Dr referring to the destruction of the ministry. He was constantly attempting to destroy or shut up the TVT, twi verbal tradition, in some certain critical areas.

I really think this is the best first approach to understanding Dr’s stunningly odd remark, as being spiritually based and not 5-senses based.

Based on all the other things I see Dr doing in the record from 1982 to ’85, I think my guess fits right in. I’m ready to change it. I see in the record that this natural/factual versus the spiritually/true is of such great importance, that Dr several times and in several ways tried to remind us of it. In his last teaching he says (in not so many words) that not mastering PFAL means that ministers are doomed to mere 5-senses abilities in ministering and serving. Mastering PFAL is what enables the doulos servant, the spiritual minister.

Maybe God had Dr put that “Cain’s spiritual progeny” there just so I could teach this today.

[This message was edited by Mike on April 07, 2003 at 0:38.]

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

pARTY POOPERS

VPW loves MIKE.

[This message was edited by DATWAY on April 07, 2003 at 0:54.]

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Datway, could you please edit your post? I think your string of z's has pushed the frame of the thread to about 500% of the width of my browser.

Thanks dude. Btw, I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment. Mike's response isn't worth reading.

Hey Mike, we're still waiting to hear you address ONE AE, let alone 32. How bout it?

JerryB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mIKE IS NOT real. HE IS A COMPUTER PROGRAM DEVELOPED BY VPW IN 1985 TO PLAGUE GSPOT BECAUSE HE KNEW IN HIS FORESKIN oops KNOWLEDGE THAT HIS WORK WOULD BE RIDICULED AND THE PROGRAM IS SCHEDULED TO SELF DESTRUCT AT HIS RETURN.

mmrrrraaaawwwww

hI mIKE I'M HAL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, you're so sadly mistaken about us, about our motives, and about how we spend our time. You arrogantly presume that we read PFAl and/or the other books solely for the purpose of finding errors. You're reading comprehension must be pretty bad: the fact that errors is the purpose of this thread does NOT mean errors is the purpose of our overall reading of Wierwille's books. To the contrary, the purpose of this thread is strictly to challenge your thesis. Your presumption that we're digging ourselves into a hole because of our attitude toward handling PFAL is a misreading of this thread and our posts. It doesn't surprise me that you would be so sadly mistaken about this thread, as it is an extension of your pathetic misreading of Wierwille himself.

For the record, once again, it is not my opinion that you should be compelled to address all of these errors: it IS, however, my opinion that you must address them if you expect ME to take you seriously. I can only speak for myself (though I expect others agree with me). I won't fall for your "accept my thesis and the errors will evaporate" approach because, frankly, I see what it has done to you: it has turned you into an arrogant, intellectually dishones slanderer who relies on "God told me I'm right" to prove a point and would rather speculate (incorrectly) about my priorities rather than address our honest questions.

So, take your time answering these. Or don't answer them at all. No one's forcing you to do anything. But keep your slander to yourself. The more you speculate about my motives, the more arrogant and ignorant you prove yourself to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rafael,

To properly address these matters one must first master. That I'm doing, and loving it.

I think you're attempting to skip around the mastery step, and crank away on the AEs prematurely.

I've learned from doing, for about 25 years, what you're doing here in skipping around the crucial first step, that there are all sorts necessary techniques that need to be employed for the sake of efficiency. Foremost is a huge knowledge base of the books and magazines and tapes, which some of you folks have, some not so huge.

Second, a RECENT huge knowledge base is preferable. A refreshed knowledge base is what OLGs (older leader grads) lack the most. Rafael, you may be excused from this criticism, as well as many other more recent grads. Older grads often have a terribly degraded knowledge base to qualify as an AE solver. Older grads often only obtained a partial knowledge base of the books back in the good old days, and from that partial base, some has leaked out, gotten mixed with other things, and gotten changed as memories do over 20 and 30 years. I’m figuring that OLGs had to take the class before ’82 to be leaders around ’82, so we’re basically talking 70’s grads. Give or take however much you want on these approximate years.

Older grads do have one advantage in that we got to see this stuff applied well (some of us did) for some period of time, often as long as ten years. And JerryB, it isn’t the feelings, it’s the miracles, the GREAT cooperation, the trust, the excitement when someone spoke in tongues, the massive numbers of people learning to SIT, TIP, and prophesy, and I could go on and on.

Most of us OLGs do KNOW it can work if it’s set up right, and I know now that it was our exposure to the books, the writings that pulled it off spiritually. Immediately after taking the class for most of us, the books became our keys that unlocked our KJV Bibles. Our relationships with our Almighty Daddy in Heaven came as we gradually got to the point that our KJV Bibles were our best friends. That’s the was it was supposed to be. It worked a lot and for a long time, until we drifted from the key books.

The film class was a great exciting introduction, but after that it was the books and the people. The agape love. We saw it We lived it. ...and then we drifted and forgot it and every one of us OLGs is Robert Conrad, desperately wandering back to find Shangri La. Well I found the pass! It’s mastering those books.

AEs can be very instructive. Solving them often leads to deeper understandings, which is a component of mastery . I’m not against working on them, I just have a very different approach and priority system for dealing with them.

I’ve seen many AEs resolved, and fireworks of deep understandings often follow. You’ll see it when more go “Whosh!”

By the way, I have a few AEs being worked on. I have no idea when I’ll be ready to post on them. April 15 is coming and I haven’t even started filling out my forms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rafael,

As far as slandering your motives, I did not intentionally do that at all. I don't think?

It's late and I'm tired.

Please keep this in mind. Sometimes in my posting when I refer to the way things are done here on this thread, I'm not singling you out. Like the "snide remarks" or things like that, I'm not attributing directly at you, but to the collective attitude here.

The atmosphere is seething with anti VPW inspiration, and while I can handle that in some situations, when it comes to working AEs I insist on a chang of venue.

I just don't think it's efficient, and I insist on better for myself, and I urge better for you all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey! What Happened? No one said anything about Dr's stunningly odd statement.

I'm hoping someone has more information on that, which may confirm my hunches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry,

You may have missed some of my earlier posts about how come I don't like to respond to goading or demanding. I'm not posting here to convince or to engage in dialog that will distract from my mission. I'm here to post some information I think has been missing in the mix, not play debate under any rules you demand of me. I like to discuss the information I'm posting, but I retain the right to do what some think is cowardly. Rafael, is your clipboard ready? I dodge things like this, and I do it with style.

I'm not afraid of people thinking that I'm a coward.

Hey THAT’s catchy! I like that. I should make a bumper sticker of that one. Oops! I forgot. This is the internet. Good-bye million dollar idea... goodbye.....

Ahemm! Where was I? OH yes. You’ll just have to wait, Jerry. I do things under my scheduling to do what I see is God’s will. What you or other people think is secondary. I got way too much material to post before I get bogged down in these things. I’m having fun believing God gave us His Word in pure form. Ain’t that a kick! Isn’t God GOOD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rafael,

in case you missed it, Mike reiterated his

previous assertion that you were a latecomer,

and, as such, are unqualified to read vpw's

books and actually comprehend what they were

about. If you had arrived in the "good old

days" like Jerry Barrax and Zixar and Research

Geek and Goey and ex cathedra and Mike, no

doubt you'd have no problem coming to exactly

the same conclusions Mike has, and probably

would be quite contrite for daring to suggest

that vpw's books were the work of man, not the

work of God, who now took this chance to fix

all the problems with His previous book, known

to many as the Bible.

Just thought you (and the peanut gallery) might

have blinked and missed that. Consider this a

recap after the commercial break. Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Rafael, you ungrateful pipsqueak, you will never be the Man of Gawd Herr Doktor was until you can cultivate some credibility by appearing on TV.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...