Raf

Wow. Busy day. Nice posts all around. A few replies: Vertical Limit: Ditto to what you said. Goey: Ditto to what you said, too. Zixar: A couple of things to reply to here. First, I agree with your premise. It's the purpose of this thread. Until the figures of speech discussion (in which I conceded in the very first post that yeah, maybe it is an interpretational error), we tried to hold to that. The figures of speech discussion came several hundred posts into this thread, so I figured the track record of "actual errors" covered our little diversion there. Technically, it was a derailing, but I'm not complaining. The figures of speech debate totally validates your point. My only contention is that an uninformed reader might think you're making your point as though I am unaware of it. To the contrary, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the criteria of actual errors and always have. The other point you make, Zix, is, "Wierwille never said everything out of his mouth was straight from revelation. Treating every niggling thing he said as if he did is pedantry taken to ridiculous extremes." You do realize, of course, that the purpose of this thread was, in part, to address exactly the extreme and unsound point of view you criticize as "pedantry taken to ridiculous extremes." In other words, we agree. Again. Finally, you say: "Any hint that our arguments are made from malice diminishes their impact to the audience, regardless of their truth." To which I reply, anyone who has read this far into the thread and come away with the impression that the argument we're making is purely malicious will have already reached that conclusion before reading anything. I respect their RIGHT to do so, but I do not respect their DECISION to do so, and will not bend over backwards to assure them of my integrity (since NOTHING I do or say will have that effect). JERRY!!!!!! Jerry rocks. God bless you, man. Okay, let's address the errors Jerry has proposed: 1. Wierwille's definition of "private interpretation." First, I totally agree that II Peter 1:20 is discussing the ORIGIN, not the MEANING of scripture. I see no room for debate about this. I hesitated to call it an "actual error" because I thought it might fall under "error of interpretation." Would anyone like to discuss this one? Have at it. 2. God can only speak to that which He is. What can I say? You nailed it. Actual error. Any debate? 3. The image of God is spirit. Ditto. Discussion? 4. Regarding Nathan: I actually changed my mind on this subject while writing this post, so forgive me if I seem to contradict myself in the paragraphs which follow. Wierwille begins with an illustration and I give him license to have some fun with his source material as much as I would any other preacher (I loved the way Ralph Dubofsky expressed Jesus' thoughts after the disciples questioned whether it was him walking on the water. According to Dubofsky, Jesus wanted to reply, "YOU IDIOTS! WHO ELSE WOULD BE OUT HERE?") The only straightforward quote in Wierwille's exposition (which is clearly false but arguably forgivable as a rhetorical device) is "You are the man!" I doubt that's the scripture he refers to in his statement. The problem with Wierwille's summary, as I see it, is not the throwaway line "isn't that a wonderful verse of scripture." It is the following, which Goey referred to (and which Plots would have to agree is NOT a rhetorical device and not acceptable by anyone's definition): Umm, no he would not. The BEST that can be said for Wierwille's statement is that it's baseless speculation. That's the BEST! Wierwille was quoted as saying "where the Word of God remains silent, he who speaks is a fool." Fine. In telling this story, he was a fool. One thing that needs to be stated (or is it repeated?): Wierwille's exact statement regarding the women of the kingdom is as follows: There are so many actual errors in that statement it's hard to tell where to begin. I've heard one attempted defense of the statement, but I utterly reject it as a willful defiance of logic and language. Here are the errors. 1. "Technically." Technically means there's a technicality. That technicality would have to exist in law or culture. Well, we know that the technicality did not exist in law, for we have the Law and we know that Wierwille's statement was not part of it. We also know from Jewish culture that there is no such provision, for Jewish culture was... Shoot, it was the LAW! There is nothing in the Torah or the Talmud to back up Wierwille's assertion. Therefore, technically, Wierwille's statement is an actual error. Second: what's this business about no one having a right to say anything? If no one had a right to say anything, then Nathan had no right to say anything. If no one had a right to say anything, then the commandment against adultery is meaningless. Defense of Wierwille in this matter requires denial of the Biblical record and wishful thinking. As Goey said, the only defense of his statement is the speculation that God revealed this stuff to Wierwille directly. I've often said people seem to resort to "revelation" in order to validate opinions and positions that have no basis in fact or truth. How can you argue with "God told me?" I can't. And I won't. I can only compare the declared revelation with the Bible, and when they conflict, I'm tossing the garbage and keeping the Bible. That was the standard Wierwille (indirectly) taught me. It was the standard I tried to hold before I ever heard of Wierwille, and it's the standard I will continue to hold, regardless of any efforts to exalt the word of a man over God's Word. Finally (really): You are correct sir! Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. That statement was nimoypneustos (Spock-breathed).

Plots, While I disagree that this is a "legitimate surmise," I do think it's acceptable rhetorical speculation for preaching purposes. It was a mistake to include it in the book, but FAR from being a big deal. If you go back to the first pages on this thread, you'll see that I did indeed "give a preacher a break" by questioning whether such rhetorical devices should be included on an actual errors list. My exact words, picking up from where Jerry's quote left off... A few days later, I think it was, I wrote the following: So yes, I gave a preacher a break, but not the opposing viewpoint that led to the creation (creation! creation!) of this thread.

An all-new potential let's discuss it and see if we agree actual error maybe. I've really got to stop allowing Zix to write my intros. Anyways, this comes from Mark Clarke in the doctrinal forum. What say ye? Actual error? Or room for debate?

Hmm. Let's see. Either I quote the part where I say "okay, maybe it's an error of interpretation..." or I block the creamed corn with large leaves of Romaine Lettuce and return fire with mashed potatoes. And no, I'm not gonna forget the gravy.

The horse moved! Shoot it! Shoot it!

Yawwwwn. Even if I were to concede that point, which I don't, Wierwille is still in error for stating that figures of speech emphasize their points over other points in God's Word (or, in Wierwille's words, God would not leave it to a mere mortal to decide what's important in His Word - that's why He used figures of speech). Look, I've said from the get-go that Wierwille's error is probably one of interpretation, not an "actual error." The fact that you disagree with me on this only proves that point. Can we PLEASE drop this now?

Did he just call us silly? Yo mama too! Food fight!!!!!!

I apologize for inferring that you made an implication based on my implied inference. This is so THE, you know that, don't you?

I never implied that your implication was less important or less heavily emphasized than my implication. That implication was your implication, not mine. Futhermore, yo mama! Can we stop now?

Well, you've given me an awful lot to reply to. Where to begin? Let's begin at the end. The expanded PFAL syllabus at the end of the Advanced Class syllabus has Wierwille stating, as quoted by Zix: First of all, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand. Nothing at all. I never disputed the notion that the order of the words in God's Word are perfect. It's not the point of this discussion. The implication you drew most absolutely does not contradict the implication I drew. In fact, you have conveniently ignored the fact that I dropped the word "important" as a product of MY faulty paraphrase (did I criticize you for paraphrasing? You imply that I did). There are many things that are "important" in studying and understanding God's Word. But Wierwille only lists one way in which we are able to tell whether God is trying to emphasize something, and that is the usage of figures of speech. I continue to maintain that a figure of speech only emphasizes a point in comparison to THAT SAME POINT, without the figure. You cannot compare the emphasis of two independent points based solely on the employment of a figure of speech. Yet according to Wierwille, no mere mortal can be trusted to decide what to emphasize. So we ask him, how do we know what God wants emphasized? His answer: He employs figure of speech. That's great. Any other way to know what God wants emphasized? Yes sir, figures of speech are God's markings as to what He wants emphasized in His Word. That's great, Doc. Any other ways? The order of the words in His word are perfect. That's great, Doc, but it doesn't answer my question. It implies an answer. No it doesn't. Yes it does. That's not an argument, that's just contradiction. Name one other way in which God emphasizes a point in His Word. God doesn't leave such interpretations to mere mortals. Not for a second. So how do we know? Figures of speech. Third base! Listen, Doc, is there any other way in anything you wrote that states how God emphasizes a point? Figures of speech. Anything else? I didn't say only. Okay, fine. Here's another question, Doc. If you have two verses, and one employs a figure of speech, and the other does not, how do you know which verse God wants emphasized? The one that has a figure of speech is the one God wants emphasized. Are you sure? I'm mortal, aren't I? Okay, so which is emphasized more in God's Word - "Take, Eat, this is my body" or "He is Risen?" ... Once again, the use of the word "ONLY" is not central to my thesis, which plainly stated is as follows: The presence of a figure of speech does not indicate that God is emphasizing the point being made over other points that do not contain a figure. This is true in all literature, and it is true in God's Word. The presence of a figure of speech DOES indicate that the point being made is being emphasized over the alternative method of making the SAME POINT. A literal statement (He is risen) is sometimes far more heavily emphasized than a figurative one ("lift up your head," Gen 40:13). All it takes is ONE such example to prove Wierwille's statement wrong. I humbly submit that there is more than one such example in the Word of God.

I'm not just talking about production values. I'm talking about the script, which was lifeless, the continuity, which was non-existent, and the licenses, which were just this side of unforgivable. Here's a taste: You're a reporter at a major international event. The technology does not exist for you to go out in the middle of a battlefield, prop a camera on a rock, and immediately begin broadcasting live, with no hookup to any satellite truck or network. Even assuming such technology did exist, a reporter who expected to go live on the air HAS TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIS NETWORK BEFORE DOING SO. You don't just go out there, turn on your camera, and say "This is Buck Williams reporting Live from Israel." For the exact same reason, I consider "Up Close and Personal" a godawful movie, and it head great production values. By the way, what time was the rapture? Ray's in Chicago at the beginning of the movie. We know he travels to NY, gets on a plane and starts flying toward London. It's vedy vedy dark outside when the rapture itself takes place. But son of a gun, it's still the middle of the afternoon in Chicago, where Chloe is still driving in broad daylight. Sure enough, when they get back to whatever airport they get to, it's daytime again. Now I've seen fast planes, but I've yet to see a commercial jetliner fast enough to outrace the sun. The rise of Carpathia is given such short shrift that one has to wonder what on earth is the big deal about him. The best acting was by the men who played Bruce Barnes and Nick Carpathia. Cameron was okay, and Chelsea Noble... well, God bless her, but she was given a character who was too stupid for words. And she did things in the movie that are not in the book, just to make her character even MORE stupid! Example: showing up at Ray's house, not knowing his wife and child are gone, and asking him to follow her to New York. I'd have punched her lights out! Now, is it an enjoyable movie? Sure, the same say ABC Afterschool Specials are enjoyable. But is it any good? Blech.

Just to show that I'm no respector of persons.... Put Up or Shut Up!!! :)--> Seriously, by all means, share it with the rest of the class (ooh, a figure of speech!). The word "only" is not central to my thesis. I used it in a paraphrase and you (humorously) asked me to defend it. I believe it to be a natural interpretation of the words actually used by Wierwille ("figures of speech ARE God's markings," as opposed to "figures of speech are ONE OF God's markings"). But the point is that Wierwille takes the presence of figures of speech to be points that God is emphasizing over other points that do not emply figures of speech. They do no such thing. They only emphasize the point they are making over THE SAME POINT without the figure. Just because verse A employs a figure does not mean God emphasizes it more than point B, which does not. So, what else does Wierwille IMPLY adds emphasis?

Hate to say it, but, there's TWO of them now. The first one was good goofy fun. Not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination. But it had two or three really terrific moments (a man finds his wife's wedding ring on their bed, the unveiling of the anti-Christ). Godawful movie, but somehow watchable.

That's pretty sick, dude.

Very funny, young man. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 23, 2003 at 14:14.]

I'm deleting these messages because, DUH, I missed Zix's joke. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 23, 2003 at 14:14.]

A quibble on the definition of "emphasis," coming from the man who told us that having one preposition out of place will crush your Bible into a million itty bitty little pieces. I call that fair game. The problem, Zix, is that Wierwille makes a logical leap based on the information you provided, and you're not allowing us to call him on that leap. In point c, you remark that figurative language connotes emphasis by definition. While that is true, it only connotes emphasis using the literal statement as a base. It does not make reference, as Wierwille does, to other statements not covered by the figure. Hey, you started it. In other words, God may have been emphasizing the original points by using figures, but the emphasis was only in relation to the statement God would have had to make literally. It is NOT in relation to the rest of the Word. Example: Jesus could have said, "When you eat this bread, I want you to think of me. And when you drink this wine, I want you to remember my sacrifice." But to really drive the point home, he said "Take, eat, this is my body. Take, drink, this is my blood." The second way is an emphasis over the first way, but in no way is that statement an emphasis over "He is not here, for he is risen." That last statement contains no figure of speech, but it FAR surpasses the communion statement in terms of what God wants emphasized in His Word. There's nothing in the Bible that says an understanding of communion is required for salvation, but an understanding of the resurrection is required. Which does God emphasize in His Word? Well, according to Wierwille, mere mortals don't have the right to claim the resurrection is emphasized above communion, especially since a figure of speech is employed in describing communion, but no figure is employed in describing the resurrection. What you call "a quibble," Wierwille uses to prop himself up as some great one. Who else has taught you figures of speech, he asks, conveniently neglecting to cite the Trinitarian Bullinger as his source of that information. I have to ask again: does Wierwille mention Bullinger's book on figures of speech in the videotaped class? I know I heard about it when I took the class, but I do not remember if it was on the tape or if the coordinator tried to sell it.

why i outta...

Now don't get picky. get it? Fruit? Orange? Picky? Actually, you said this was neither interpretational NOR actual. As for my justification for "only," it's a literal interpretation according to usage, a perfectly valid construct that Wierwille himself used all the time. Based on the fact that no mortal has the right to decide for himself what needs to be emphasized, and the fact that God marked that which he wanted emphasized by using figures of speech, and that in the seminal book on the subject of how to understand God's Word, NO OTHER MEANS of discerning emphasis is provided, I think "only" is a perfectly valid word. To add another method of discerning that which deserves emphasis in God's Word would require me to claim immortality, as no mortal would DARE take such a matter upon himself.

After looking at all of this last night, there's a lot of ground to cover. I want to try to do it as quickly as possible. First off, here's the actual PFAL quote. Zix, tell me if you still feel the same way after reading it: Yeah, Doc, it took years for SOMEONE ELSE to ferret out and study. You just copied it. Anyway, Wierwille himself employs a figure of speech here, doesn't he? Yes, it's called "FullofitamI." Or to state it in more delicate terms: If God will not allow any mortal the privilege of deciding what should be emphasized in His Word, and the ONLY way God marked His emphases is by employing figures of speech, does it not follow logically that God doesn't want something emphasized if He did not employ a figure of speech? Notice that Wierwille does NOT say "figures of speech are ONE OF God's markings..." He says the ARE God's markings and never, in any other part of his writing, does Wierwille ever list anything else. I should note two things: Wierwille does not use the term "that which is important." That was my faulty memory. With the actual quote in front of us, I still stand by my categorization of this as, at the very least, an error of interpretation. Secondly, the figure of speech "FullofitamI" is a corruption of a stolen joke. I'd love to take credit for it, but that would be plagiarism. So I stand by my original comment. Oakspear: NICE JOB! I knew that chapter would be a gold mine of actual errors, and you proved me right. Well done.

To be a little more clear: My argument is that what you've called "The Inverse" is actually a part of what Wierwille is saying.

I need to quote the book to address your statement. Without the book in front of me, I cannot do that. Perhaps tonight, if I'm not busy, I'll post the relevant quotes. To summarize them, however: Wierwille writes quite plainly that we are not to decide for ourselves what is important in God's Word, but rather, He does so by employing figures of speech. That statement is false because there are many unimportant things (or lesser-important things) that employ figures of speech. Likewise, there are many important things that do not employ figures of speech. The importance of a scripture, a command, a statement, or a doctrine is NOT dependent on the presence of a figure of speech. You claim that I've only disproven the inverse of Wierwille's statement. I'll have to provide you the exact quotes to show that I've disproven the actual statement. What would the contrapositive be, by the way?

I'm going to open the subject up to all the written books of VPW, not including Life Lines or those that were edited posthumously. In Christians Should Be Prosperous, Wierwille writes that throughout the Bible, material prosperity ALWAYS hinges on tithing. In truth, plenty of Bible characters are described as being materially prosperous, and the vast majority of them never tithed. -------------------------------------------- This one is more of a question than a declaration of an actual error: In Are the Dead Alive Now, Wierwille goes into detail about the vast distinction between a "resurrection" and a "rising." I always thought he was absolutely torturing the language when he said this, but never cared enough to venture into it any further. Any comments? ------------------------------------------------ Anyone care to expound on Wierwille's explanation of modern Jewry in the "Jew and Judaen" chapter of Jesus Christ Our Passover?

I can quote the PFAL book at length to prove my point. I think HE is the one who stretched the importance of figures of speech awfully thin.

Zix, you're still missing my point. My point is this: Sometimes a figure of speech is used in a way consistent with Wierwille's description. Sometimes it does not. THE FACT that sometimes it does NOT proves Wierwille's statement false. Remember, Wierwille's statement is that figures of speech are the Holy Spirit's markings as to what is important in His Word. The fact is, there are many places in the Bible in which God communicates something of vital importance without employing a figure of speech. And there are many places in which figures of speech are employed where that which is being communicated is, let's face it, not all that important. I'll agree with you that this is quibbling over concepts and definitions. However, you need to recall that PFAL is the book that set the standard for this discussion. Wierwille wrote that ONE PREPOSITION, just ONE out of place, and the WHOLE BIBLE would fall to pieces. The extraordinary weight Wierwille placed on figures of speech, and his usage of that information in touting the importance of his work, ministry, class and book, makes it worthy of discussion. I'm not saying figures of speech are unimportant, or that they're unworthy of study. I do believe Wierwille inflated their importance and made claims about them that are not supportable, Biblically.