Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
Raf

Actual Errors in PFAL

Recommended Posts

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

These are two bonafide, "legitimate" ERRORS. I never saw this addressed.. for six years..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the "final", "canonized" form of herr gawd breathed works are supposed to be the distillation of the all-truth as such..

please explain how "god" could make such a fundamental error..

the canaanites the children of Israel married were decendents of ABRAHAM.. Abraham was a decendent of Noah, Noah a decendent of Seth..

I wish there were a Readers Digest version of this thread! :blink: :yawn1:

Skim. VERY quickly..

:biglaugh:

actually, there is an article on the main site Raf did on actual errors..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a hoot! This is like revisiting an old playground. Still, some things are timeless, like the actually errors in PFAL. They don't go away by ignoring them!

Love,

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raf's original post, for those who only read the last few posts on a thread:

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 you believe in "the law of believing" depends on your interpretation of certain words of Christ.<BR><BR>But some errors are concrete. They are objective. If I told you 2+2=5, you would be able to say I am wrong, flat out, and that there was no room for misinterpretation of that fact. I can't say, "well, it's just your interpretation that 2+2=4, but you're just not enlightened enough to know that it's really 5."<BR><BR>The purpose of this thread is to document actual errors in PFAL, primarily the book, but also the class. Why rehash this stuff? Simple: for those who believe that PFAL is “God-breathed,” it is necessary to point out that God cannot get things wrong, especially when it comes to matters of Biblical interpretation. So, let’s look at some documentable errors in PFAL.<BR><BR>Number 1<BR>In PFAL, Wierwille writes that David is called “a man after God’s own heart” only AFTER the events in II Samuel related to Bathsheba and Uriah.<BR>In truth, David is called “a man after God’s own heart” in I Samuel, long before he is king, long before he met Bathsheba.<BR><BR>Number 2<BR>In PFAL, 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, something Wierwille acknowledged near the end of his life, and which is acknowledged in TWI’s very own Aramaic Interlinear.<BR><BR>Number 4<BR>In PFAL, Wierwille notes the distinction between “thoroughly” and “throughly.”<BR>In truth, the latter is an archaic form of the former. They mean precisely the same thing (Wierwille failed to follow his own principle of interpreting words according to their Biblical usage).<BR><BR>Number 5<BR>In PFAL, Wierwille writes of the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven.<BR>In truth, the Bible uses these terms interchangeably. There is no difference whatsoever in their usage. Jesus uses them interchangeably. (I debated whether this is a difference in interpretation or a difference in fact. My conclusion is that this is a difference in fact, as it is plain to anyone who cares to look up the parallel usages of the two terms).<BR><BR>Number 6<BR>In PFAL, Wierwille says “apistia” is the kind of unbelief held by people who don’t know enough to believe, while “apatheia” is the kind of unbelief held by people who’ve heard enough, but don’t care.<BR><BR>In truth, the word “apistia” is used of the disciples after the resurrection (Mark 16:14) and of Israel (Romans 3: 1-3). Neither can be said to have not heard enough to believe.<BR><BR>Number 7<BR>In PFAL, Wierwille defines “apostle” as one who brings new light to his generation. It may be old light, but it is new to the generation that hears it.<BR><BR>In truth, “apostle” means “sent one.” It does not carry the definition Wierwille applies to it (indeed, such a definition leads one to wonder how the term could apply to more than one person in any given generation, while we KNOW that there were 12 during Jesus’ lifetime, and 13 if we include Jesus himself – the Apostle and High Priest of our confession. Or is it profession? Whatever).<BR><BR>Number 8<BR>In PFAL Wierwille writes that “all without distinction” means anyone within a specific category.<BR><BR>In truth, basic grammar tells us that all in a certain category means “all WITH a distinction,” the distinction being membership in that category. This error is so fundamentally blatant that Wierwille himself corrected it in Jesus Christ is Not God.<BR><BR>Number 9<BR>In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the gospels are written to Israel and/or to the church of the gospels.<BR><BR>In truth, the gospels are all written after the resurrection, and they are written to practicing Christians. There was nothing written specifically TO the church of the gospels.<BR><BR>Number 10<BR>In PFAL, Wierwille states that in Luke 2, Jesus was taken to the temple for bar-mitzvah at age 12 instead of 13 because he was considered illegitimate.<BR><BR>In truth, the passage in Luke 2 has nothing whatsoever to do with bar-mitzvah. The passage states rather clearly that they were celebrating Passover, not Jesus’ bar-mitzvah.<BR>In addition, there is no such custom in Judaism (treating illegitimate children differently for the purpose of bar-mitzvah). Wierwille cites “an old piece of literature” as his source for this bizarre claim.<BR><BR><BR>Any one of these FACTS should be sufficient to prove that PFAL is not the perfect utterance of God Almighty, but (at best) the flawed work of a flawed man trying to communicate a system for reading and understanding the Bible.

Geo's astute observation:

Don't forget the pathetic error of placing the Council of Nicaea in FRANCE!<BR><BR>Geez Pete, Wierdwolf didn't even have much of the rudimentary knowledge of The Bible down very well, yet he had us believing he had some special deal with the Almighty to get the Secret Bible Decoder Ring.<BR><BR>Get over it Mikey. Wierwille was a cheap grifter, charlatan, conman, pick-a-name. The fact that we all bought into his line of B.S. so deeply is to our shame, not our benefit.<BR><BR>Are you this enthused about selling Amway as well?<BR><BR>Mental hygiene alert!<BR><BR>geo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, see?

Youse guys just don't "get it".

The flood involved WATER!

This involves SNOW!

Same basic substance but a much deeper "spirchal" significance.

If only yudda been payin' attention in PLAF (The Wonder Class), yudda knowed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another one from raf..

Wierwille writes:

quote:

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

To whom were the gospels addressed? To a period before or after Pentecost?

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

Piece of cake. Since they were written after Pentecost, they are ADDRESSED TO a period after Pentecost.

haven't seen this one adequately explained by "the other side of the story" either..

but I'd like to see them addressed LOGICALLY.. starting with my two little finds..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps one of the BIGGEST errors in the written material.. look at page one of the 62 page sylabus..

"Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille"

no, factually, he was NOT a doctor, did not complete a legitimate path of study.. held a piece of paper that was another falsehood, to adorn the wall with..

I'd like to see these errors.. starting with calling abraham and his decendants offsprings of Cain.. and the ERROR asserting that ahab was a son of Jeroboam..

PROPERLY and LOGICALLY addressed by the "other side of the story"..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish there were a Readers Digest version of this thread! :blink: :yawn1:

LOL I think that on all the long threads when I am trying to read them.... And to add to the fun there are bible verses quoted on most of them too.

LOLOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well.. I think I'll just keep this thread "warmed up".. like the "stretched" coffee in the old pfal classes..

:biglaugh:

but really.. I didn't make the "no error" claim.. PLEASE explain how a small fact such as the caananites not really being decendants of cain (if the bible is really true in this regard) escaped the grand distillation of "all truth"..

or how Ahab really wasn't the son of Jeroboam.. that he in reality according to the TEXT- the son of Omri..

I wouldn't be suprised if someone couldn't find the actual work where the vicster plagiarized this particular set of errors..

personally.. I don't think anyone can grow spiritually in such a static environment..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ever wonder WHY there was a creation?

Could it possibly be..

just maybe.. God was all he wanted to be (or cared to)..

then came the committees..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well.. I can float around out here, keep the stretched coffee and drambuie warm..

:biglaugh:

waiting..

hums..

*to do do do do do do doooooo*..

*la dee dee, la dee dooooo..*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. I am Swami Squirrel..

:biglaugh:

Hey.. we must be twins.. maybe brethren.. and if the administrator checked, he might even detect that we have the same IP address..

:biglaugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raf, you have a typo error 4, which kind of distracts from your point:

Discussion: We understand and acknowledge that Wierwille was trying to teach the principle of reading that which is written. That principle is valid, and this is a good example of the need to read the Bible carefully. But Wierwille was in error when he explained the distinction between "thoroughly" and "thoroughly."

Just thought I'd bring it to your attention.

BTW, did Mike ever offer rebuttals anywhere in this thread? I've only been reading the summary article.

Edited by Mark Clarke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, did Mike offer rebuttals anywhere in this thread? I've only been reading the summary article.

From The snowstorm thread

Mike said:

Again, Mark, what is a factual error to you can be seen as not at all the case when you use differing methods to read the writings. This shouldn’t be too hard to see. We were shown how unbelieving scholars can read errors into the ancient scriptures by way of their methodology, right?

*******

Then waysider said:

Differing methods?

What, pray tell, might be these "differing methods" one might use to explain the errors in genealogy that Ham pointed out?

*********

To which Mike replied:

#1 One method would be meekness. I alluded to this before in my response to Mark in Post #633 when I said "We were shown how unbelieving scholars can read errors into the ancient scriptures by way of their methodology, right? " We were taught this in the class, remember? The assumption must be made before beginning that the text is right. Then you look for the answers on THAT side of the tracks, not on the side that you all are on, assuming that it's full of errors.

#2 Another would be being familiar with ALL the places in the writings where the target topic comes up. This takes years, and it must be done with #1 in mind.

#3 Word studies - key words that are employed in the target topic need to be defined in terms of how they are used elsewhere WITHIN the PFAL writings, not how they are defined outside the writings. This too takes much time, especially considering we don't have a concordance for the PFAL writings.

There are others. I've listed these here many times in years past, but thanks for not seeing them, cuz it gives me a chance to repeat them for newcomers.

**********

Then waysider said:

Excuse me, Mike

That's utter nonsense.

The genealogy errors are simply that----errors.

It shouldn't take "years" or a "PFAL concordance" to recognize that.

Approaching the text with an presumption that it MUST be right or wrong, is faulty research methodology.

***********

Mike's response:

Not necessarily.

If a researcher has ALREADY determined that the text is right from previous research, then current searches can use that previous result to help guide the work.

Similarly, if the text has previously been found by a researcher to be faulty, then the methods I suggested would not be used.

You're assuming that all research has as its goal finding the text right or wrong. That's not the case with me, and it's not the case with others here.

I start out with the assumption that the text is right, and an apparent error needs to be reconciled, so I keep searching until a satiffactory answer is found.

Others here start out with the assumption that the text is wrong, and they work it until they think they've demonstrated this by finding an apparent error, and that's where they halt their search.

It sounds to me that you've only thought this through from one side. It's like you're too emotionally invested with the idea that the text is wrong, and this prevents you from seeing the other possible side. That possibility offends you so much you don't give it enough time and brainpower to see what I'm talking about.

***********

Mike (from above context)

I start out with the assumption that the text is right, and an apparent error needs to be reconciled, so I keep searching until a satiffactory answer is found.

************

waysider's response:

Paraphrased straight out of PFAL

That's exactly what Wierwille did. He made up his mind what HE thought it should say and wouldn't relent until he found a way to fit it with his own thinking. "The Word MUST say it's Ok to have sex with someone else's wife, kids, it just HAS to."

**************

SNIP

Mike:

I gotta go to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally----Wierwille, himself, claimed (IIRC, in the PFAL class) that research should be approached with an open mind, even though, in practice, that's not what he did. As an example, he cited his experiences with researching the number of days between the Ascension and Pentecost. At one time he said it was seven and another time said it was eight. He said (paraphrased), "In The Way Ministry, if new research shows our old research to be incorrect, we change."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record: I am out of the nitpicking through the PFAL writings business.

I wrapped all the books up in plastic and gave it to this guy who comes by my house twice a week to file my important documents, many of which contain important nutritional information such as the sugar content of each bowl of Frosted Flakes contained in the box my stepdaughters recently emptied. As a bonus, he also finds a special place for orange peels and apple cores I placed in the same plastic wrap as LifeLines and The New Dynamic Church.

Amazingly, the air is cleaner in my home now.

Release from your prisons, indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough Raf.. but I hope you don't mind some of us thumping a long dead equine type of animal here..

:biglaugh:

We were shown how unbelieving scholars can read errors into the ancient scriptures by way of their methodology, right?

not exactly. Name one, please. Really..

the only one who "read errors" into the greek manuscripts, that I know of, was Wordsworth.. and he took liberties to change words to ones which would "ordinarily be used".. but not out of a spirit of "unbelief".

but before that.. let's address the little genealogy issuse.. without references to not being "meek" or "humble" or some such nonsense..

the mogster was caught with his pants down, intellectually in this case here..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waysider,

Thanks, I read Mike's comments in the snowstorm thread. I was asking about whether he ever provided any rebuttal in this "Actual Errors in PFAL" thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's useless.. you'd get an answer like from General Smythe.. "there is no need, it's in the record.."

Mr. Baumgardner, I wonder if you get this reference..

:)

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...