Actual Errors in PFAL

[Raf]

I don't recall if that's in the book. As it was stated in the class it was definitely wrong. He said an atheist is someone who doesn't believe anything, but that such a belief is self-contradictory because it IS a belief, and therefore there's no such thing as an atheist. Then he chuckled. I guess he found it very amusing. For what it was, it was amusing. Just not accurate or truthful.

[Oakspear]

What I found scary about that whole thing was people, years later, talking about atheists as if Wierwille's definition was correct.

Pointing out that Wierwille was using an incorrect definition was met with blank stares and subject changing.

It doesn't matter if we turn to dust...guess I'll see you dancin' in the ruins tonight

Oakspear

[Outin88!]

Oakspear said;

"This thread has gotten pretty long, and maybe we discussed this, but what about Wierwille's "definaition" of an atheist of someone who doesn't believe?

Maybe it's not in the book, but remember how he goes on about an atheist can't be an atheist because he believes that he doesn't believe, therefore he believes?"

I remember that too, it didn't make sense to me when I forst heard it, and it still doesn't.

[TheSongRemainsTheSame]

I beleive there is a competition of threads going on here... or is the truth at stake???

Edited February 29, 2004 by Guest

[dmiller]

Oakspear --- well put :)-->

"I read the PFAL book cover to cover before ever attending a twig fellowship, but was not impressed; it was dry and somewhat boring. The class itself is what hooked me, and it's what's in that spoken presentation that we remember."

Same with me. I was unimpressed till I actually saw vpw give a teaching at twi. After that, well----- the rest is history.

[Raf]

Not a competition in my eyes, SRTS. Is the truth at stake? No, not really. The truth remains the truth regardless of what we decide here. I responded to a question, but am otherwise perfectly comfortable letting this thread die. It made its point: there are actual errors which some people refuse to acknowledge, preferring instead to challenge our motives rather than address the errors (which are NOT typos, but errors on the part of the author, who is VPW, not God).

[Tom Strange]

...or Bullinger, or Leonard, or...

She's the kind of a girl that makes the "News of the World" Yes you could say she was attractively built.

[CoolWaters]

Bumping up.

[Oakspear]

Here's one. Insignificant, but an error; in counting!

Wierwille mentions that the hours of prayer were the first, third, sixth, ninth, and twelfth hours. Now I don't know whether or not that is correct, but he then converts those hours to modern time keeping:

6:00 AM, 9:00, Noon, 3:00 PM, and 6:00 PM.

Look at it for a second, it doesn't add up:

9:00 AM is three hours after 6:00 AM. The third hour is just two hours after the first hour!

Assuming that the sun rises at about 6 AM and sets at 6 PM(which Wierwille did for the purposes of his books):

1st = 6 AM

2nd = 7 AM

3rd = 8 AM

4th = 9 AM

5th = 10 AM

6th = 11 AM

7th = Noon

8th = 1 PM

9th = 2 PM

10th = 3 PM

11th = 4 PM

12th = 5 PM ending at 6PM - which would be sundown around the equinoxes.

Every reference that Wierwille made to the hour of the day, other than the first was wrong, using his own assumptions.

I noticed this the first time I took PFAL, but didn't think it was a big deal, until this "PFAL is god-breathed" stuff came along

Edited March 17, 2004 by Guest

[Goey]

Oak,

If I am not mistaken the Jewish day is divided into two "12-hour" periods. The day begins at sunrise and ends at sunset and the night begins at sunset and ends at sunrise. So, at most times of the year the hours of the day will not be the same length as the hours of the night.

Take today for example. Here, in Austin TX:

Sunrise: 6:38 AM

Sunset: 6:41 PM

(Both day and night have pretty close to 12 hours.)

But.... on December 17th for example (in Palestine) here is what it would be:

Sunrise: 6:36 AM

Sunset: 4:39 PM

Daytime has only 10 hours and 3 minutes.

Night time has 13 hours and 57 minutes.

By the Jewish reckoning of day and night, the day would still be divided into 12 one "hour" periods and the night 12 "hours" also. But the day "hours" would be only 50.25 minutes long and the night hours would be 69.75 minutes long.

So if I wanted to be "accurate" for Dec 17th here is how it the Jewish day "hours" would correspond.

1st = 6:36 AM

2nd = 7:26

3rd = 8:16

4th = 9:07

5th = 9:57

6th = 10:47

7th = 11:38

8th = 12:28 PM

9th = 01:18

10th= 02:09

11th= 02:59

12th= 03:49 Ends at 4:39 PM (Sunset)

It really depends on the day of the year as to how the Jewish "hours" correspond to modern hours. Maybe Wierwille was just generalizing - maybe he didn't know what he was taking about either. I suspect the latter.

For a P.H.D. his work was sloppy at best.

Edited March 17, 2004 by Guest

[Oakspear]

Goey:

I believe that he was using equinox days - 12 hours sunlight to make a generalization, rather than do the exact calculations - that part is okay with me.

My observation is that he calls the first hour 6 AM, and the third hour, which should be two hours later he calls 9 AM, which is actually three hours later.

His error in addition was enshrined in every publication that dealt with Jewish timekeeping.

[Mark Sanguinetti]

Here is an error in PFAL. Speaking of four crucified. Better make that two plus Jesus equals three crucified. I just learned the other day that Jesus was actually killed on a tree. Yes, a green growing tree. Apparently, some times people were crucified this way. Sometimes it was necessary because of the speed with which this can be done rather than first building a support to hold the weight of people. No digging of posts necessary. Just find a good tree and nail a support to it with which to nail someone to until they are dead. Actually, this also fulfilled bible prophecy. There are three verses in Acts that say he was crucified on a tree, at least according to the NIV and other bible versions. Acts 5:30, 10:39 and 13:29. A tree is round and multi dimensional which can explain how someone could pass by 2 people and get to the third person and still have him be in their midst.

Hate to post and run, but work is calling me.

Gal 3:13-14

13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

NIV

Acts 5:30

30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead-whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.

NIV

Acts 10:39-40

39 "We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen.

NIV

Acts 13:29-30

29 When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. 30 But God raised him from the dead,

NIV

Edited March 17, 2004 by Guest

[Raf]

For the sake of an actual error, I would say I want it to be indisputable. Four crucified is certainly disputable. While I think the two crucified position was not nearly as weak as Wierwille suggested, I don't think anyone can say Bullinger and Wierwille were indisputably wrong.

Oakspear, I'm inclined to agree with you. Wierwille set the parameters of his example, so he was at the least inconsistent in its application.

Edited March 17, 2004 by Guest

[Mark Sanguinetti]

Indisputable is such a strong word. I did the quicky explaination as it was all I had time for. Jesus was crucified on a tree. Sorry Bullinger. You were good, but not infallable. Wierwille just copied his work. If Wierwille ever had an original thought he would not know where it came from.

[Raf]

Perhaps someone could start a "substantive errors in PFAL" thread, this one having served its purpose.

[Jbarrax]

The problem with the "substantive errors" thread is, we can't come to a consensus about what's erroneous and what's not. And, as you have seen, the more lattitude given to the detractors, the more contentious the rebuttals of the Wierwillites become.

Is this how we are going to spend the rest of our lives; debating the value of PFAL?

JerryB

Edited March 18, 2004 by Guest

[Raf]

Egad I hope not.

[Oakspear]

"Tree" could have been a figure of speech for the wood upon which he was crucified. Somertyimes it's "tree", sometimes stauros. Difference of interpretation.

Edited March 19, 2004 by Guest

[Mark Sanguinetti]

I will have more on Jesus being crucified on an actual living tree later. For now though, work is calling me.

[def59]

Oak

It's the same battle over years.

Remember the brouhaha over the millennium?

Some said it started in 2000, others in 2001.

2001 is techically correct because our calendar has no year zero.

ex 1-100 the first century

101-200 the second century

1901-2000 the 20th century.

The reason we call this century the 21st is that it will end in the year 2100.

So our decades are all screwed up as well. The sixties technically ended in 1970, not 1969 because the century didn't start until 1901.

So we count the first year 1901, 1902, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 and 10.

But — and at long last — my point is, culturally we say the new century started in 2000 because we understand the concept of zero now.

It sounds better to think of sequences beginning and ending in zero.

That may explain the first, third and sixth hour stuff, it was cultural.

Or, VPW got it wrong, it wouldn't the first or 1,001st time!

[GT]

This gets bumped to the top because it's a great thread and if you haven't read it yet, you should!

Also, there is no way this subject has been exhasted.

[Mike]

"...there is no way this subject has been exhasted."

I'll drink to that.

[T-Bone]

"...there is no way this subject has been exhasted."

I'll drink to that.

I think you've had enough Kool-Aid for one sitting!

[greg123]

Raf Said

Wierwille writes that there is no word “lama” in the Aramaic.<BR>In truth, there IS such a word in Palestinian Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke. It means “why?”<BR><BR>Number 3<BR>In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the word “lama” should probably be replaced with “lmna,” “for this purpose,” which is never used in a question.<BR>In truth, “lmna” can be used in a question

Raf said there is a word in Aramaic named "lama" and it means why. Then why do you think the Lamsa Bible was written to pull the wool over our eyes. My question is did Lamsa write his bible in vain. In Lamsa he says in the verse "For this purpose I was spared". Should we assume that he is wrong?? Then if he is wrong, how precise is the KJV. Thank you and I feel so welcome here.

Greg

[dmiller]

Hey there Greg -- welcome to GreaseSpot.

Check out THIS LINK from the Truth or Tradition site.

It's the best explanation that I've read concerning the My God, My God question.

Have fun! :)