Zixar

Okay, I'll respond bit by bit, in boldface:

seaspray: Don't jump off the roof just yet. Your post about Galatians, 2 Peter, and 2 Timothy doesn't have anything to do with PFAL, they're talking about the Bible. Wierwille never claimed everything he taught in PFAL was by direct revelation of God, a la Joseph Smith and the golden plates of Mormon legend. Rather, he claimed that it was via his research. You remember, the "Biblical Research, Teaching, and Fellowship Ministry"? Like I said before, as a class or a set of researched teachings, you can do what you like about PFAL. But there is simply no basis in fact for believing that any of it was God-breathed like the Bible was. God magnified His Word above all His Name, and each successive book in the Bible shows its divine origin by its consistency and continuity with what has gone before. PFAL does not. Is PFAL a tool for Biblical research? Sure, if you like. Is PFAL itself equal to Holy Scripture? Absolutely not. Is any of that sinking in? You don't have to give up believing what it said if you don't want to. But believing that it was written by God Himself is foolish idolatry. I worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I'm thankful for Paul, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but I don't worship them at all.

Well?

PFAL p.95 Mike, Wierwille writes an example of what people like you who have their minds closed to God's Word do: PFAL, p.96 PFAL, p.97 PFAL, p.98 PFAL is not "undefiled and absolutely pure" as Wierwille demands the true Word be. 99% brownie and 1% dog turd doesn't make a pure and undefiled dessert. PFAL p.128 PFAL contradicts the Word in the Bible. Again, Wierwille himself proves that PFAL cannot be the Word of God. [This message was edited by Zixar on March 11, 2003 at 10:23.]

PFAL. p.83

Aha! The Secret Lost Buried Hidden Poll has resurfaced! Of course, this makes it no longer Buried... Or Hidden... Or Lost... Or Secret... And since it isn't the only poll, the use of the definite article "the" should be replaced with the indefinite article "a"... Behold! A Poll has resurfaced! Geez, that's not much of a cause for a specific announcement... Never mind.

From Rafael Olmeda's web site on the subject: PFAL, p. 88 So Dr. Wierwille goofed. Big deal. Buuuuuuut.... PFAL, p. 104Therefore, by Wierwille's own words, PFAL is not perfect, and it is therefore impossible for PFAL to be the perfect Word. God does not fail referential integrity checks. PFAL does. Mike, anyone who actually read your entire mirror thread knows that you don't know logic from a hole in the ground.

seaspray: Just so we don't start off on the wrong foot, I actually do believe the Bible, and quite a bit of what was taught in PFAL. Things like speaking in tongues, born again, Jesus Christ is not God, and most importantly, the integrity of the Word. Dr. Wierwille did get some things demonstrably wrong in PFAL, some nitpicks, some more substantial. He did get some things right, too. All it is is a Bible study class. Some of it is profitable, some of it isn't. If you choose to believe all of it, that's completely your choice, more power to you. What the real argument is over is believing that every single word in the orange book came straight from God. Whether some of it is of God is open to debate. Whether all of it is directly from God is not--the PFAL class does not live up to its own standards for "fitting like a hand in a glove, with mathematical exactness and scientific precision" as VPW was fond of saying as indicative of the integrity of the Word. Several folks here, myself included, some believers, some not, have challenged Mike's ultra-literal worship of PFAL itself as idolatry. Rafael Olmeda has put together a list of actual errors in the PFAL class, like VPW getting the David story backwards, which can be proven in under two minutes by simply reading the account. For most rational people, the discovery of a real error would automatically rule out PFAL as being given by direct inspiration of God. Mike irrationally refuses to consider the possibility. Like I said, you don't have to give up believing what you were taught in PFAL if you don't want to. A lot of folks here don't believe any of it, some still believe a lot of it. Only Mike (and you, unless I've misunderstood you) goes so far as to believe PFAL is literally as much the direct Word of God as Ephesians is. Wierwille never claimed it was, in fact he claimed the exact opposite, separating his words as inferior from the true Word of God.

seaspray: Have you actually read this entire thread? Tell you what, since Mike refuses to answer, why don't you explain to us all some of those "apparent" contradictions that Rafael posted in the Actual Errors thread?

Gee, Mike, if PFAL is the Word of God, and since Wierwille based a lot of his teachings in there on it currently being the Grace Administration, if the administration has changed, then PFAL is false, and therefore not the Word of God. If the administration has not changed, then the contradictions between PFAL and the rest of the Word disqualify it from being God-breathed under its own criteria, and therefore, again, PFAL is not the Word of God.

Mike: That's ridiculous. Besides, the record in Jeremiah 36 didn't have a proscription against adding to the Word at that time. PFAL is most definitely not God's Word. Even with a Wierwillian view, there has been no change of administration between the epistles and today, so PFAL does not have any authority to contradict any prior revelation. Since PFAL contradicts the Word and itself in many places, it does not meet PFAL's own standards of being God-breathed. Therefore, it isn't, QED.

Somebody's GOT to be a liar... -->

From the Sixth Edition: Receiving The Holy Spirit Today, Victor Paul Wierwille

I seem to remember that in RHST's case, the comparison was between an early edition (2nd Ed., if memory serves) and Stiles' book. Weren't later editions of RHST edited a bit?

Suit yourself. Win2k isn't as user-friendly as WinXP is until you've used it a while. Of course, those who disagree usually know enough about computers to know how to duplicate the functionality, which is not quite an unbiased opinion. Win2k is really just WinNT 5 with DirectX bolted on for good measure. Not that that's bad, it's just NT is more business-oriented than casual-user oriented, under the hood.

No, Windows ME was a step backwards from Win98SE. Horribly buggy. If you got it to work, you were in the minority. WinXP really is the best Windows yet, and what it should have been all along.

If you mean something where she can just pop the tape into a walkman hooked up to the Line In jack and record one song, the built-in Audio Recorder can do that. If she wants to play a whole tape and have it automatically broken up into tracks and written back out onto a CD, then no, not that I know of, although the new Windows Media Player for XP can help record one at a time and set up a play list for burning back out onto CD.

How could I forget The Ring? Definitely catch it when it comes out on DVD next week. Every time you think they've used a predictable cliche'--surprise! I think it's the only movie my wife actually screamed during.

Weout: What, no "Ain't Too Proud To Beg"??? ;)-->

Def59: That Clash song is "Train In Vain", which has to be in the running for the title that has the least to do with its song.

DR. PHLOX Here's your check, gentlemen... KARL (to Indy) Why does this guy keep showing up? INDY Beats me. The things that just stick in some peoples' heads... DR. PHLOX If you don't have any money, I'm sure we can work out a trade! KARL We have money, thanks. DR. PHLOX Oh. 'Cause, I mean, you know, my meals aren't that expensive, it's not like-- INDY "you charge an arm and a leg for them?" DR. PHLOX You've eaten here before? INDY rolls his eyes. INDY No. You won't be needing the cleaver behind your back. DR. PHLOX You sure? I pay top dollar for the good stuff! Faster than the eye can follow, INDY lashes out with his whip, sending the meat cleaver flying across the diner... ...straight into the head of the Korps Drone who has been spying on the two. The Korps Drone barely notices, intent as he is on scribbling condemning evidence down with one hand and masturbating with the other. INDY, KARL, and DR. PHLOX stare dumbfoundedly at the sight. KARL Umm... INDY Eww... DR. PHLOX Hey, there's some things even *I* won't eat, er, touch, er, consider... KARL You sure? DR. PHLOX Well....I suppose if I scrape the fungus off, I could use him in the chili... INDY Improvise, adapt, and overcome, that's what I always say, Doctor... next [This message was edited by Zixar on February 21, 2003 at 12:10.]

Jerry: Ironically, I think this is just an interpretational error. See italicized comments below: It depends on how strictly one defines self-interpretation as to whether or not this is an error. Is the Word of God consistent enough with itself as to be self-interpreting? I would say yes. Does the KJV retain sufficient consistency by itself? I'd say no. Since it depends on exactly where one falls on that axis of thought as to whether or not it's an error, I'd say this one has to be in the interpretational error category instead of the actual error category. That's just my opinion, I welcome others.

Oh yeah, The Omen! The bit where Doctor Who gets impaled with the spike, or the glass-pane beheading... Classic!

Yep, gotta give props to the original Night of the Living Dead too. When that little girl zombifies in the basement...

Off the top of my head, I'd have to say John Carpenter's 1982 remake of The Thing. Creepy.