Jbarrax

Mike said, 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. Mike, it seems you want me to address how I deal with Bible contradictions based on my belief that PFAL if chock full of errors. That sounds like a fair question. But I don't want to be rude. You were here first and this thread was apparently started with you in mind. So I'll make a deal with you. You answer the 15 or so Actual Errors in PFAL that we've listed so far, to Rafael's satisfaction, and I'll tell you about how I deal with apparent contradictions in the Bible. Peace JerryB

Rafael The Observant said: 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." Well said! I never noticed that point. The only way VP's definition of "create" could apply to God putting spirit in Adam was if Adam preceded the angels and of course God himself. "Silly it becomes" What is that, actual error number 15? Anybody keeping count? Peace JerryB

Hi Garth, great to see ya! Yeah, the CES forum was terriffic; best Food Fights I've ever seen. I learned a ton there, much of it from you. And now, back to another correction in the inconsistent reasoning offered by the "minority voice" Mike wrote, 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. Dear Mike, this is another example of you shifting the definitions to suit your argument. The sad thing about this is, it seems that the shift isn't designed to counter anything we've said, but rather to cobble together your own shaky concept of a divine PFAL. To be specific; Dr. Weirwille taught that if there appears to be a contradiciton in the Bible, the source is either in a) Our understanding, or b) TRANSLATION. You said it's either in understanding or "...in the middle men like proofreaders and printers." You have equated the TRANSLATION of the Bible form Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to English over thousands of years, with the process of editing and publishing PFAL, which occurred all the way back in 1971. To put it bluntly; We're not dealing with a TRANSLATION of Power for Abundant Living. Are you saying that proofreaders and printers have diluted the original meaning of PFAL just as much as centuries of translators have done with the Bible? Personally, I think that's an absurd statement, to say the least. It may seem like a small point, but I think it indicates how much you are willing to fudge, to cheat, to deceive even yourself in order to avoid facing the horrifying possibility that your trust has been misplaced.

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.]

Anyone know if Jacques Kersaint (16th Corps) is still in TWI? The last time I spoke with him was at least 5 years ago. It was a very short conversation. Jacques was my WOW brother and a man of outstanding commitment to truth. I had hoped he would wake up and leave by now. Any news? Jerry Barrax

Thanks Steve. It's good to be back. Everything else in my life is actually going pretty well, too. :)--> Thanks Zixar. And by the way, not to belabor the point about Nathan, but I think the big reason I'd count this as an actual error is, in the PFAL book, Dr. Weirwille concluded that section with the statement, "Isn't that a trememdous verse of Scritpure when we examine it closely to see the Greatness of God's Word." (paragraph 3, page 88.) I challenge Mike or anyone else to find an actual scriptural reference anywhere in Weirwille's 2 page exposition about David and Nathan. He never cited a Scripture in the first place; just started telling his version of the story. Then, after accusing David of wanting to behead the prophet, falsely stating that the King had a right to any woman in the country, and falsely stating that it was only afterthis correction that David was called a man after God's own heart (Which Raf has already pointed out is a contradiction of the Bible), he had te audacity to talk about having examined a verse of Scripture in its depth--when he never even cited any! Had any mainstream preacher done this we would have ridiculed him mercilessly. Somehow, we let "The Man fo God" got away with it unchallenged. Peace JerryB

Actual errors Here a couple more big' uns. 1)God can only speak to what He is. VP asserted, based on no Scriptural evidence that I can recall, that God, being spirit, can only speak to what He is. He built this into the doctrine about Jesus briding "the chasm between the natural man and God" and then, into the battle of the sense vs revelation faith doctrine. All of this is based on the absurd and incorrect teaching that God Almight can't communicate with anyone who doesn't have holy spirit in or upon them. According to VP's teaching, Adam and Eve lost the spirit immediately when they sinned. But Genesis 3:9-13 indicate that God spoke with both Adam and Eve right afterward. He also had a lengthy conversation with Cain right after he murdered Abel. Did Cain have holy spirit upon him? There's no Biblical evidence to support this. There's also the problem of God communicating with un-annointed folks like King Abimelech (Gen 20:3)and Laban, Jacob's crooked father-in-law (Gen 31:24) by dreams. Is a dream an avenue of the five senses? Nope. What your mind experiences in a dream is neither seen, nor heard, nor felt, nor smelt, nor tasted. It's beyond the five senses. So according to the Bible, God spoke to people who didn't have holy spirit in or on them by an avenue other than their five senses. He didn't "come into concretion". So VP's assertion that God can only speak to what He is, and the subsequent doctrine about a chasm between the natural man and God is bunk. BUNK I say!! 2)The Image of God is spirit This relates to the erroneous definition of bara that someone else has already brought up. Dovetailed with Dr's tortured body-soul-spirit, formed-made-created masterpiece is the assertion that God created the spirit He put in Adam & Eve and that it was in this spirit category that He made man in his image. He quoted Genesis 1:27 which says, " So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." It all sounds pretty good unless you back up and read verse 26. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: According to VP, the word made [asah] refers specifically to the soul of man. Yet here in verse 26 it's used in conjunction with the word "image" which VP says is spirit. What so amazes me about this particular error regarding Genesis 1:27 is the fact that it's so blatantly wrong, because the contradicting evidence is right next to it! but I (we?) believed it for years. Oh well. As I said, those two are biggies, imho, because they are the foundation for two or three other doctrines, which are also erroneous. Relinquishing the soapbox. :)-->

Someone mentioned Private Interpretation. I think this is one of the major factual errors, becauase it's the foundation of the whole "How the Bible interprets itself" doctrine. Dr. Weirwille quoted II Peter 1:20 and then went on that memorable tirade about Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jumpup saying what they think a scripture means. His definition of "private interpretation" is a person expressing his thougts about the meaning of the Scripture. The problem is, this is exactly the opposite of the context and usage of the phrase "private interpretation". The context is about how we GOT the truths we believe, not what we THINK about them. Peter is asserting that ... "...the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. " Verse 20 means that the Word didn't come by Moses, John, Isaiah et al making it up. It wasn't contrived by a bunch of conmen, it was given by revelation. Weirwille's twisting of the context and subsequent "I don't give a care what you think!" statement paves the way for him to tell us to turn off our minds, not to try to apply logic and reason to his teachings and to just let him "unfold it" for us. Anything less than humble acquiescence to his revealing of the mathemeatical exactness and scientific precision of God's mathcless word was Private Interpretation. We got so thoroughly bamboozled by this error, that the twisted phrase was reduced to the acronym "PI". Anyway, that's one that definitely should be added to the list I think. Peace JerryB

Wordwolf said "I still haven't worked that business about the "outer darkness" yet, but I have it pencilled in for further study. If you've worked it in detail, I'd love a copy." Please forgive my clumsiness. I've forgotten how to do those nify quote brackets you guys use. :)--> I haven't worked that any further, but I have discovered and error in it. I equated the Kingdom of God/Heaven with the New Heaven and New Earth That is, I equated being cast out of the Kingdom with the verse in Rev 22:15. That can't be, cause the Kingdom ends before the New Heaven & Earth according to I Cor. 15:24-28. So, I still believe that some Christians will not enjoy their eternity, but I don't think the "mist of darkness" fate mentioned in II Peter can be equated with Jesus' prophesies about some folks being cast out of his Kingdom. And Rafael, the quote about "linguistic ledgerdemain (sp?) and a degree of intrepidity is from a Star Trek movie. The Undiscovered Country I think. They were trying to rescue Kirk and McCoy in a stolen/borrowed/rented Klingon ship and had to pass for Klingons in order to get past the sentries. Do I get a cookie? :D--> Peace, y'all JerryB

"I miss Jerry Barrax. Here's another Jerry Gem. quote: VP insists Nathan was hesitant to reprove David because he was afraid David would have him beheaded. There is nothing in the Scripture to support such a claim. Wow. It's true:" Rafael, I don't have the words to say how touched I am to see this. I had thought the PFAL Review project was long forgotten. I still wish I had finished it or could get back to it even two years after its interruption, but I'm still immersed in work and family issues. I don't visit the GS regularly. I was just passing by, so to speak and I find this. Anyway, thanks so much for remembering. Peace! Jerry Barrax