Raf

Zixar, Cynic: your discussion is fascinating. I assure you that if I had tried to list this as an actual error, I would have provoked a similar argument. I think its best that these discussions take place before the error is listed, rather than after. I appreciate the time you both put into it. Excath: this is not "seriously a doctrinal thread." It is, however, serious. The point of the thread is to point to objective errors in PFAL: errors upon which all reasonable people can agree. The fact that "thoroughly" and "throughly" are synonyms is an objective fact. It's not the result of a different interpretation of some archaic word. Wierwille was simply wrong to say that there's a difference between the two words. Remember, ex, that Wierwille wrote "if any other word had been used" other than "pros" in John 1:1, the whole Bible would crumble. That means he set a VERY low standard for what would disqualify a document as "The Word of God." Wierwille's works contain many such examples, and this thread is a way of identifying some of them. Contrary to what some people may think, we actually spend a good deal of time trying to figure out how to keep items OFF the list, resulting in some items staying off the list even though we are reasonably certain that they are errors. But we're not looking for reasonable certainty. We're looking for "2+2=5," errors that we're absolutely certain are errors. Being human, sometimes we will be mistaken. I doubt, highly, that we were mistaken 33 times. I have little doubt that more of the errors we've listed will be resolved. But there's just no way ALL of them will be. And as long as ONE ERROR remains, then PFAL is not the Word of God. If it's worth your time, stick around and help us out. You're certainly welcome to. But I'd understand if you have other things on your plate. :)--> Mr. Hammeroni: you got in hte groove right away. Welcome. I think the full context of Wierwille's statement is necessary: Now, once again, let's attempt to give Wierwille every benefit of the doubt: Continuing to read the section, we see that Wierwille does indeed change the subject from the offspring of Seth to begin discussing the children of Israel. At first I thought this was an error, as there were no "children of Israel" at the time of Genesis 6, the verses Wierwille had just cited. But no, he changed the subject. On to Hammeroni's statement: Cain's progeny was wiped out in the flood. The children of Israel, a post-flood people, could not possibly have married Cain's progeny. Could Wierwille have been using the term "Cain's progeny" figuratively, to mean unbelievers? Could anyone counter that argument? I leave it up to you. Next: You really don't want this to be easy, do you? Okay, Ahab, Ahab, Ahab. Ah, here it is: Yes, Ahab was the son of Omri and the husband of Jezebel. Now, Jeroboam preceded both, but I don't see that Ahab was of Jeroboam's line. If he was, then the term "Jeroboam's son" is a shortcut, the way Jesus is the Son of David. Further research is necessary.

I'm trying to be a pain in the butt, remember: When Wierwille writes, "A relative pronoun referst to the nearest noun as its antecedent," he is talking about how to read the Word of God. It matters not that Zixar can construct a sentence that defies this principle. It only matters that God does not. Therefore, to establish the error, we must find examples of Wierwille contradicting the principle in plain English, or the Bible contradicting it in its original language.

How about running the sentence past your dad: "A relative pronoun refers to the nearest noun as its antecedent." True or false? I'm no expert in grammar, but I'd be interested in the opinion of a grammar expert.

Not so. "Whomsoever I send" qualifies as a clause. That being the case, "whomsoever" is not a freestanding "relative pronoun." The pronoun is now "whomsoever I send," which defines itself. It may no longer be a relative pronoun, and thus not subject to Wierwille's definition. Further, if it is correct in Greek, but incorrect in English, we can't very well hold Wierwille accountable for a translator's error. The counterargument is too simple: the Word of God got it right, the translator got it wrong. That's why a case of Wierwille himself making the error would be so much more useful. No room for a translator's error.

I'm not sure. The relative pronoun in that case is part of a clause, "whomsoever I send." I'm not sure. I DO mean to a be a pain in the butt, but only to verify that this is an actual error.

A MAn After God's Own Heart: It's my belief that the verse in Acts 13 refers to David at the time of his selection as King, and not a summary of his whole life. It is my belief that at no time after the Bathsheba/Uriah incident is David ever referred to as a man after God's own heart, and that the Acts record does not contradict this belief. Nonetheless, in the interest of intellectual honesty, I am striking the error because one could conceivably argue that when Wierwille wrote "Then it says in the Word of God," he was thinking of Acts 13. That position cannot be disproven. Relative Pronouns Thanks for the input. Like I wrote last night, I did a little bit of reading into what a relative pronoun is. I'm hesitant to include this as an actual error until we shore it up a little. Zix, while you posit a reasonable disproof, I would be more inclined to accept an actual sentence from the Bible (with the original languages consulted) or from Wierwille's written works themselves. Any quote in which Wierwille employs a relative pronoun that does not refer back to the nearest noun as its antecedent would establish the error, best as I can see.

The statement about the "nearest antecedent noun" in Wierwille's books does not need to be made in reference to any particular verse in order for the error to be an actual error. The statement itself is the error, regardless of what verse/interpretation it is used to support. You must have an earlier edition of RTHST. In my book, the reference is on p. 143. "A relative pronoun refers to the nearest noun as its antecedent." I don't know what a "relative pronoun" is. What does a "relative pronoun" relate to? Is there a difference between a "relative" pronoun and a plain old ordinary pronoun? I have no idea. This is the kind of term that gives Wierwillites the wiggle room to claim these errors are not errors at all. I'm doing a little reading on it right now, not enough to lead me to any solid conclusion. It seems that Wierwille is claiming that the word "one" is a relative pronoun. It's not. A relative pronoun would be a word like "who, whom, whomever, which, whichever, etc." However, I do not know if the word "one" is a relative pronoun in Greek. The research continues. And with that, good night.

Regarding David: I know it's hard to let this one go, but the fact is, we have to stick with what is actually written: The incident with Bathsheba/Uriah is recorded, then it says in the word of God that David was a man after God's own heart. Taking a very loose meaning of "then," we will find that expression, albeit ALL THE WAY OVER in Acts 13. You'll note that the verse in Acts 13 makes no reference to Uriah and Bathsheba. Therefore, granting VPW as much leeway as possible, the verse in Acts 13 is a reference to the whole quality of David's life, both before and after the incident. Wierwille never claims that the reference to David as "a man after God's own heart" is not used before the Bathsheba incident. He only claims that it IS used AFTER that incident. And it is. I'm amused, however, that the resolution of this error was achieved by reading the Bible, not by "mastering" PFAL. But that particular statement in PFAL does not prove the book ain't God-breathed. I remain confident that out of the remaining 32 errors we've identified, the majority are actual errors. If PFAL is God-breathed, not one error will stand. Yeh right. As for the eternal life debate: I think you just made it abundantly clear that it is interpretational.

This error is being removed from this list because David is called "a man after God's own heart" in Acts 13:22, long after the events recorded in II Samuel. Although an argument can be made that it is still referring to a time before the Bathsheba/Uriah incident, the fact remains that the Bible calls David "a man after God's own heart" after the events of II Samuel, effectively refuting this error. This error will eventually be removed from this list, after I believe those who are interested in the list have had ample opportunity to review the material.

ANNOUNCEMENT!!!!! I'm REMOVING error number 1 from the list!!!!

Okay, so we need to do a couple of things here to establish this as an actual error (and I believe at this point that it is): First, we need the exact quote from Wierwille. It should be in Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, the chapter on I Corinthians 12. If it's not there, we can try the chapter on John 1 in Jesus Christ is Not God (or the appendix on antanaclasis). Point is, if you can find the quote, you can't claim the error. Second, we need to determine that the statement is as absolute as we're discussing. If Wierwille leaves any other possible interpretation of his words, that other possible interpretation MUST be considered. In other words, if his statement is conditional, or if it is written in a way that the principle applies in some cases but not in others, then it's not an actual error. It's a statement that is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Finally, we need examples from the Bible and from PFAL itself that directly contradict the statement. That should be real, real easy.

The principle that a pronoun referst to the nearest antecedent noun is worth investigating. I've never given it too much thought, but I'll bet good money that you're right: it's an actual error.

Welcome to the thread, Ferbie. You should come by more often. If you have the time, go through the previous pages (yikes) and/or through The Official Actual Errors List for an explanation of how I hoped this thread would work. I believe you will agree with me that the errors you've outlined are "interpretational," which is to say they are subject to long and tedious arguments after which two reasonable people may still disagree. Is Wierwille wrong about those things? Maybe. Can a good, honest argument be made that he is right? I think so. Do you? But I do appreciate the contribution. Does anyone disagree with me on this?

Actually, on further reflection, I think it's synecdoche and not metonymy. I could be wrong on either point, but the essence of what I'm saying is that the part (eternal life) is being put for the whole (new birth spirit). By the way, WordWolf, what's going on? You're posting in the daytime! :)--> Throwing off my clock is what you're doing.

Agreed. What else would lead someone to refer to a teaching that was published and disseminated TWICE as being "Lost?"

I've finally had a chance to look at this "eternal life" discussion you guys have been having (above). I clearly see what Jerry is saying. I do not clearly see what Zixar and WordWolf are saying. Wierwille wrote that those who lived before Pentecost did not have the "new birth" spirit and therefore did not have "eternal life." The error is in equating those two terms. One could have eternal life prior to Pentecost. Jerry's scriptural quotes establish that. Further, there is no substantive difference between the fact that eternal life was promised but not manifested then, and promised but not manifested today. The only thing I'll ask Jerry to address is this: can Wierwillites claim that VPW's use of "without eternal life" was an example of metonymy - with eternal life being put for "the new birth spirit," emphasizing that the eternal life we have is a rock solid and unretractable promise as opposed to a conditional promise? (The promise on the cross would be the exception only because of the circumstances: Jesus knew the robber was not going anywhere). If that is the case, the error goes from actual to interpretational.

No one. It's called common courtesy. You can take FOREVER to answer the questions. I have ALWAYS said so, and never chided you for your delays (I have chided you for posting long, extensive, posts while simultaneously claiming to have no time to address the questions, but that's different). You can decide never to answer them. You can answer them all tomorrow. But what you can't do, at least not honestly, is challenge my integrity and use that LAME challenge as a substitute for answering the questions. YOU're the one promoting a counterfeit "Word of God." The burden is on you to answer questions about it.

The error list is now at 33. It might be higher if I had more time, but I don't. I did finally add the JCING errors cited above, and the Judas Iscariot contradiction. I also added a brief summary of the discussion in which Mike attempted to explain error #1. Actual Errors in PFAL.

Changing the subject (without comment): Jerry, You've made repeated references to an error in which Wierwille states "isn't that a wonderful verse of scripture..." or something close to it after he goes over the whole Bathsheba affair. You've cited this as an error because Wierwille doesn't actually cite a single scripture in the preceding paragraphs. I think I've resolved this error, however, and would like to ask you to reconsider your position: When Wierwille writes "Isn't that a wonderful verse of scripture," he is not referring to any verses in II Samuel. He is referring to II Timothy 3:16. What do you think? (You need the book in front of you to sort this one out).

Logical Fallacy: AD HOMINEM: Attack the messenger rather than the message. Namely, Mike is unable to answer the list of actual errors in PFAL, despite a pretty danged good attempt at addressing ONE of them (our list is at over 30 at last count), so instead of addressing the deficiency in his own position, he attacks the "quality of heart" of his detractors, accusing us of being dishonest researchers promoting "bad data." This, of course, absolves him of the responsibility of answering honest questions. Nice. Very nice.

First person to make a KISS joke gets a rap in the knuckles. That said, Welcome to Greasespot, Paul!

Friends, Smikeol does not believe that TWI stood faithful to the word of VPW. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for him to try to promote his views on an EX-Way site, since The Way has already rejected Smikeol's preciousssss. Basically speaking, this is an open forum. If someone wants to try to talk us back into TWI, present, past, or future, they're entitled to do so. Challenge the logic of his argument, but in my opinion, it's wrong to challenge his decision to bring his argument to an audience he thinks might contain even one receptive Igor. Just my opinion.

Actually, while you are correct about the object of Wierwille's lesson, you fail once again to see the error in what he wrote. Wierwille wrote that "thoroughly" is external, whereas "throughly" implies an inside job. He did NOT merely say it was a matter of reading what's written. He actually said there was a substantive difference between the two words. And he was wrong.

Agreed. That's the ESSENCE. I agree wholeheartedly. I have no trouble whatsoever seeing that. Amazing to me that, even after it was specifically pointed out to you, you continue to use this straw man argument. Listen: NO ONE IS MAKING THAT ARGUMENT. I'm not making it. Im not claiming Wierwille made it. You're debunking an argument no one is making. And that's where you're wrong, and where DocVic (praise be his name) is wrong. He wrote "Then it says in the word of God..." That's chronological, no matter how much you cover your ears and deny it. Irrelevant. The fact that no one looked for it is irrelevant. The fact that it was a minor, insignificant error that means nothing in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant - unless you're of the absurd position that there are no such errors in PFAL. THAT's our contention. I say it's a little error that doesn't matter. You insist that it's not an error at all. Dude, it's chronological. It takes a predetermined bias to distract, dodge and never admit an error is an error in order to fail to see that this was a mistake. Because it doesn't matter - unless you insist it's not an error. Really, your dodging of this simple truth is comical. I think it's important to note what Wierwille meant when he said "The Word of God," particularly in the passage in question. Wierwille writes, "There are many examples of correction in THE BIBLE." This is the sentence he uses to introduce this segment. Therefore, according to the principles of context taught by Wierwille, he was talking about "The Bible," not some amorphous undefinable concept of "the Word of God," but the Bible itself. The entire section is nestled into a discussion of the value of scripture. To take this section and state, unequivocally, that "the Word of God" as used by Wierwille on p. 88 is NOT referring to the Bible is fundamentally dishonest. Bottom line: "Then it says in the Word of God..." is most certainly a chronological expression asserting that a particular phrase will be found IN THE BIBLE, AFTER the incident in question. And Wierwille was mistaken. A tiny mistake. An insignificant mistake considering the larger point being made. But a mistake nonetheless. Can you admit that, or do you have more dodging, distracting, and refusal to admit the error is an error up your sleeve?

Actually, it doesn't. remove the word "only" and we have the following: Error 1, In PFAL, Wierwille writes that David is called "a man after God's own heart" AFTER the events in II Samuel related to Bathsheba and Uriah." And the error stands, for the Bible never says of David that he was a man after God's own heart after the Bathsheba adultery and the Uriah murder. And according to Wierwille, "the Bible" and "the Word of God" are synonymous. I'll say it again: After the Bathsheba/Uriah incident, the word of God NEVER SAYS that David was a man after God's own heart. That statement is only made long before that incident. The HEART of what Wierwille said was true (which I've never denied), but by introducing the time element of "then," he made a teeny tiny little (but actual) error which still stands. You really have to bend over backwards to take a time element out of the word "then." How does Dr. Wierwille treat the word "then?" I'll give you a hint: it's on p. 159 of PFAL. "Then [after all that] were two thieves crucified with him..." Using the Word of Wierwille as the determining authority of the meaning of "then," we see that there is a time element involved, one which you go through great pains to ignore. I agree with Wierwille: David was a man after God's own heart following the Bathsheba adultery/Uriah murder. The problem is that the Word of God does not say that, and Wierwille says it does. It was a teeny tiny mistake - totally inconsequential save for your idolatrous insistence that the orange book has no such errors. Why can't you just admit that? Tell your old friend that he's just as wrong about this as you. He has zero authority in determining the actuality of this error. Simple truth is, he missed the point (not surprising, considering how you misrepresented our position). It's an error because of the time element Wierwille introduced by using the word "then." It remains an error because that statement is incorrect. The Bible does use that phrase, but only long before the incident involved, never after. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on March 27, 2003 at 8:09.] I figured I'd add a couple of smaller points: This is neither what is said or meant by pointing out Wierwille's error. No one (Wierwille included) is suggesting that David only became a man after God's own heart after this incident and never before this incident. What you have done, Mike, is misrepresent our position in order to debunk it, a disingenuous method of argument known as "using a straw man." Let's get the error precisely stated: Wierwille writes: "THEN IT SAYS IN THE WORD OF GOD." The word "THEN" means a time element is involved. "THEN IT SAYS..." But, as we continue to say, the Word of God does NOT say that. It is a reasonable conclusion to draw, but the error is in the statement "THEN IT SAYS..." when, in fact, it does NOT say that. Continuing... Once again, you're employing a straw man argument. The error we are pointing out is that Wierwille wrote "then it says..." when in fact, the opposite is true. It is said before this incident. It is never said afterward. Your use of the term "never began until period #3" is not ours. Wierwille never made any mention of the period BEFORE the Bathsheba incident. You are reading that into our criticism when, in truth, it is simply not there. Your use of quotes in that regard is deceptive, as you are not quoting anything stated by any of us. Agreed. Context is key. Wierwille CLEARLY meant the Bible when he used the phrase "then it says in the Word of God." Your suggestion that he might have meant something else on the relevant page of PFAL is nonsensical and rips the account from its context. The problem you fail to address is that it does not only say "then," but rather, "then it says..." which it does not. Contrary to your statement above, Wierwille is specifically discussing when the good condition was written (or rather, recorded) in the Bible. Now, if Wierwille had placed a comma after the word "then," you might have an argument. But he didn't. So the error stands. I've addressed this already. The word "only" can be eliminated without affecting the actuality of this error. As stated earlier, the context is key, and it is enormously clear from the context of the PFAL book that "the Word of God" in this particular usage meant the Bible. "Then it says..." But where? Where? Nowhere. You have to bend over backwards to fail to see that the sentence "then it says in the Word of God..." is a teeny tiny but actual error. I implore you to recognize this simple truth and abandon the absurd notion that this book contains no such errors. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on March 27, 2003 at 15:34.]