Leaderboard

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. 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." 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. Number 1 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. 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. Number 2 In PFAL, Wierwille writes that there is no word “lama” in the Aramaic. In truth, there IS such a word in Palestinian Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke. It means “why?” Number 3 In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the word “lama” should probably be replaced with “lmna,” “for this purpose,” which is never used in a question. 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. Number 4 In PFAL, Wierwille notes the distinction between “thoroughly” and “throughly.” 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). Number 5 In PFAL, Wierwille writes of the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. 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). Number 6 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. 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. Number 7 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. 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). Number 8 In PFAL Wierwille writes that “all without distinction” means anyone within a specific category. 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. Number 9 In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the gospels are written to Israel and/or to the church of the gospels. 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. Number 10 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. 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. 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. 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.

I'll blow your theory out of the water right now. I've never been a Saint Vic worshipper. As a matter of fact, I had many a person try to tell me how charismatic he was. Maybe its borderline Asperger"s, but I've looked at Saint Vic and thought,"Him?" I don't think worship energy has turned into hate. I think your seeing the same reaction as anybody who's been betrayed by a trust. Remember, people have been conned. How would you expect them to react?

Well, of course.........no more mention of restoration. These guys were kicked out of twi. You can't "restore" when you're not allowed in the door.

Chockfull, you are absolutely correct. That is exactly how it is today, and people in my area of NY are getting really tired of it, and some have left because of it. I don't know if you're still involved with them - I am - and they have driven many away. I am not wholeheartedly supportive or involved, but I do enjoy the teachings in my fellowship. Interestingly, the teachings from my fellowship coordinator are meatier than what comes from TWI headquarters on Sundays. That's sad, actually.

Totally agreed. Actually my life didn't start getting better until I dumped that po-dunk egotistical bunch of sycophants known as Way International leadership. Once I separated myself from them, things started looking up. It did take me a while to stop waiting for the other shoe to drop with consequences of leaving. I'm actually still waiting to see consequences of leaving. I guess I lost a bunch of fake friends. That's OK. They were fake friends. The new ones I have now are real.

Well I mean eventually you would think the flock would get the hint. Those at HQ want to construct their own little city and live blissfully with their own little vision of being a "worldwide ministry". They don't want to actually interact with the flock though. Nobody travels to see people, nobody has personal contact - the Way ministry is all run through classes, teaching or lesson plans and weekly phone calls. Talk at people consistently, never listen to them, and stubbornly persist ahead with a organizational plan and a thick head. Get those butts in chairs listening to content and get them out knocking on doors getting more people in chairs to listen to content. These "revivalists" are really nothing more than the public Exodus of Boob plus a few friends. Hopefully their video will show a few what's up and inspire leaving. However, I note the highest ranking individual in the video in the Way organization being restricted from disclosing any details due to the fear of prosecution over a signed NDA as an officer of the Way. So I highly doubt that even with their best intentions they are going to affect very many at all under the Way's clutches. Just like Mark Twain's classic novels on Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, now that the fence is whitewashed, it's time to relax and float down the river.

Oh, yes, Larry, I forgot: Please feel free to post your own. But try to keep it objective. Knock out the emotion, lest you be accused of having feelings. :)--> In PFAL, Wierwille wrote that all the women of the kingdom were technically the property of the king. In truth, there is no such technicality in scripture, nor is there such a technicality in Jewish tradition. It is utterly made up.

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, gullible women to abuse.