Raf

Wow. Thanks for the compliment. And good point about "abundant life."

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

The Actual Errors thread can get a little trivial at times if you don't keep its purpose in mind. I figure if you can't admit that at least one of those errors is, in fact, an error, then you're just not being honest. Once you admit to yourself that an error is an error, the thread has lost its function. Move on to something more substantive. The "Official" Actual Errors list 10 things I liked about the Blue Book. 10 problems I had with the Blue Book.

I don't know about thread sizes (after starting "The," who am I to complain about thread sizes?). But I'll say this: This thread is not about the topic in its title. It's about your overall thesis. That's my observation, anyway. The things that are discussed here are not about the Spiritual/Natural dichotomy and its implications. They're about whether PFAL and the collaterals have replaced the Bible as The Word of God. So if "Part Two" stays on topic, and this one continues to be about its evolved topic, then having two threads will make sense. Based on what I've read of the other thread so far, you're already in danger of losing that fight.

"PFAL Reparo!" HAHAHAHA! It didn't work? Why, of course not! PFAL ain't broke! How you gonna fix it? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

Still, at least he does it on a discussion board. At least he doesn't use this site to shamelessly promote his own. Raf

I think you're all making a strong case that Wierwille was wrong, but no one's made the case yet that he wrote this error down. That's an important part of the criteria. Here's something that, to my knowledge, doesn't fit the criteria, but is interesting nonetheless. My research on this is not complete, so I'm open to debate on this, but... In Living Victoriously, Wierwille writes that God is eternal, without beginning or end, but the life we are promised is everlasting, with a beginning, but with no end. That's why we're promised everlasting life, not eternal life. In truth, "eternal" and "everlasting" are the same word in Greek. Note that Living Victoriously was posthumously edited and therefore cannot qualify as Wierwille's written work. It's just interesting.

I'm a karaoke addict. Does that count? Don't worry about the copyright. The owner's my pal.

Oakspear, As this thread evolved, we tried to look only at errors that are actually in print in the Wierwille canon. So, if you can see in the magazines (which I do not have) or the books (which I do have) where Wierwille wrote what you say about the Godhead-head God, then we might have an actual error (assuming the rest of what you write is not only true, but indisputably so). Def, I think I've looked at some of the John Juedes work for this thread's purposes, except I might have credited his source rather than crediting him. I'm not too sure about that. I know he wrote an interesting challenge to "The Four Crucified," but using a rather loose definition, I consider his conclusions disputable. I know this got tiresome after a while, but in reality, the whole purpose of this thread was to show that the Wierwille books do not meet Wierwille's own definition of what it means to be God-breathed. They contain the kind of miniscule errors Wierwille said would be enough to cause the Bible to fall to pieces (orthotomounta instead of orthotomeo, for example). They contain baseless speculation with no foundation whatsoever in accepted scripture (David WOULD HAVE beheaded Nathan if he had told any other story). They contain significant misinterpretations of obvious Biblical truths (the difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven). The response to these indisputable errors has been to attack us all as "unfit researchers" intent on finding what's wrong. Of course, that's hardly what we were doing. What we were intent on was proving that there are errors in those books. The response to these indisputable errors has been a fundamentally dishonest approach that gloats in evading the valid challenges to the inerrancy of the Wierwille breathed word. I haven't really thought much about returning to this thread because I think its purpose was served. Those who hold Wierwille's works to be God-breathed have not shown the ability to honestly and effectively address a single one of these errors, and at least one has bragged about his antipathy toward doing so. The basis is not the quality of the work here, but a false accusation about our motives. Wierwille's work was not perfect. He never claimed it was. Wierwille's work was not God-breathed. He never claimed it was. Wierwille's work was not intended to replace the Bible as some kind of bizarro-world, "New and Improved Testament." He never claimed it was. If someone's happy disagreeing with the above paragraph, I say go in peace.

I'll post it in this space only if Mike grants permission. I consider it off topic. (NOTE: Mike granted permission, sort of. At leas that's my interpretation of his reply... So, when it comes to "Bible errors," Mike said the following, then applied it to PFAL as you can plainly see... [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on July 21, 2003 at 19:01.]

Correction, you're paraphrasing Mike. I was quoting Mike, so if you're paraphrasing what I quoted, you're paraphrasing Mike.

I'm deleting this post in response to Ginger's deletions in her post. I apologize for not answering anything you've ever written to me on the board, and ask that you point to any instance of anything you've said to me on any greasespot thread that I've ignored. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on July 20, 2003 at 22:20.]

I'm going to dodge and sweep away your inadequately researched antagonistic question.

Sorry for using the word inability. I should have written "adamant refusal." I should have written "deliberate decision to dodge, distract, evade, blah blah blah." Whatever, your thread. I was just answering a question.

That I didn't post anything for nearly three months. This thread still needs about 2,000 more posts to equal in length the first "THE" thread on Waydale. It means nothing. Anyone notice that Mike was unable to adequately address a single error on that list, and how fundamentally dishonest he was about the nature of doubts on one of those errors? What does that tell you?

Ginger, I have not read every one of your posts, and am not aware of a single time that you addressed me that I did not answer you. Not saying it didn't happen, just that I'm not aware of it. I am also not aware of one single solitary e-mail that I have received from you. So for you to say that I have not responded to you is more than a little unfair. It also has nothing to do with this thread. Mike presents his views, not to p*ss in the wind, but to elicit responses. We respond. I honestly don't understand your objection to the fact that people have strong feelings and enjoy talking about this subject. If I want to engage Mike in this conversation and he's content to continue, why is that a problem? My main concern in life is NOT Mike, is NOT VPW. You err, greatly, IF you think that my posts on this thread reflect my life's main concerns. I'll agree with you on this: let's all remember to keep all this discussion in a proper perspective. There's a whole world out there, lots of wonderful things to see and do. Brady: Hello. Raf

Ginger, Re: The heart behind your post - you have a good point. I disagree with your post. I have to stop listening to what the voices tell me is the heart behind your post. How would they know? Bad voices. Bad, bad voices. Mike, You don't need to retract the crybaby statement. It's your M.O. Please, keep it up. It's the only weapon in your arsenal.

Ginger, Thanks for sharing. I disagree with the heart behind your post and will continue to call it like I see it. If you're going to be critical of my observations, be my guest. But I didn't see you criticizing Mike for calling people unfit researchers or crybabies. I suppose your defense instinct is somewhat selective on this point.

Mike likes using the word "crybabies" to attack, personally, the people who point out Wierwille's blatant plagiarism. Nice. It's called "ad-hominem attacks." You have no reasonable substantive argument, so you try to belittle us. I really applaud your effort. It's transparent and sad, but hey, what should we expect from someone who declared his closed-mindedness from the beginning?

I rest my case.

That's very nice Mike. Ignorant and wrong, but nice. And one more time, there's a difference between teaching the same thing and plagiarism, but your conscience is so seared on this topic that it's not worth arguing any further.

I think it's patently obvious that VPW got it from Bullinger. I just don't think that, in and of itself, is a big deal. I don't even think it's wrong. I only think it's wrong if VPW took what Bullinger wrote and passed it off as his own (which he did in the chapter "The Counsel of the Lord" in the Blue Book).

My favorite fiction author is John Lescroart (who writes a series of San Francisco based legal thrillers). I'm really enjoying the New Living Tranlsation of the Bible, which is highly readable. Max Lucado serves up some really inspirational work (easily digestible pieces, too, which matters). I've tried reading the Left Behind books, but they're, umm, they're, well, they're really bad. I mean awful writing here. Blech. "It was the worst of times, it was the worst of times." Stop it, you're killing me guys! Also getting into a novel written by a colleague of mine, Jonathon King. The novel is called "The Blue Edge of Midnight." He's already published the follow-up, "A Visible Darkness," so I have some catching up to do.

There he goes again, ripping Wierwille's words from their context. "Every word he wrote to us is true." This is taken from the following: "If you by your free will accept Christ as your savior and renew your mind according to The Word, you will find that every word I have written to you is true. I challenge you to stand upon the Word of God, declare your authority in Christ and claim your rights." TNDC, p. 34 Now, reading this statement, one may conclude one of two things: 1. Wierwille was claiming that everything he wrote in the chapter regarding the unqualified commitment is true (not "God-breathed," but true, which is different. "My car is white" is true. That don't make it God-breathed). 2. Wierwille was claiming that EVERYTHING HE HAD WRITTEN TO PFAL GRADS is true, not just this chapter, but everything. I use the term PFAL grads loosely, to fit in with whatever Mike wants it to mean. I submit that proposition 2 is a distorted removal of Wierwille's words from their context. He's not talking about EVERYTHING he wrote, and he's certainly not claiming "God-breathed status" for his written work. He is speaking strictly of the "Unqualified Commitment," and nothing more. Mike distorts the plain meaning of Wierwille's statement to force Wierwille to claim something he never claimed: namely, that his written works are God-breathed. Likewise, p. 116 says "But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive." AHA! Wierwille is claiming God-breathed status, right? Wrong. Wierwille is speaking very specifically about the instructions he gives for how to speak in tongues. He never intended those words to be ripped from their context and applied to every single thing he wrote "to us." We should also note that Wierwille was wrong about the second statement. Plenty of people have spoken in tongues without believing that Wierwille's words even in this chapter are God-breathed. Both of these studies were published independently prior to their collection in TNDC (The Green Book, for the acronym-challenged). That alone proves Wierwille was not making claims that extended beyond the chapters in which they appear. Mike builds his entire theological foundation on little phrases like this, ripped from their contexts and presented so that they prop up a man he so idolizes that he can't even acknowledge an infraction so well-documented as plagiarism. It's sad, really.

One of the things we have to understand with the book of Job is the reason the story is being told. How does an honest, upright man deal with an unprovoked attack? What does it do to his faith, and to his relationship with God? The book was never meant as a treatise on why or how bad things happen to good people (as evidenced by the truth that the answer to that question is never given). The point of Job is not "how can I prevent this from happening to me." The point is, "how would I respond to losing everything? Is my faith strong enough to withstand things not going my way?" I would have cursed God and died. Job didn't. He had terrible questions and expressed his hurt very powerfully. But through it all he never stopped looking to or trusting God. I think it's repugnant that Wierwille built doctrine out of Job's expression of pain. "That which I greatly feared has come upon me." As someone who has attended and covered numerous funerals of young children, I have heard expressions like this before. To blame the parents is not only insensitive, it's appalling. The defense of this absurd doctrine runs counter to the compassion and love exemplified by Christ. I think of the man born blind, and how the apostles ask, "who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" And Jesus answered, "It was the fear in the heart and life of that..." Yeah, right.