Zixar, thanks, you caught me just in time. I'm hanging by my finger nails. I worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ too. I'm thankful for Paul, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and VPW but I don't worship them at all. VPW gave me Power for Abundant Living which taught me how to worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in truth and in spirit.
What is "the Bible"?
Just because Vic " never claimed everything he taught in PFAL was by direct revelation of God" doesn't mean it isn't.
Is it fact or truth?
"there is simply no basis in fact for believing that any of it was God-breathed"
It might be sinking in a little bit.
Rafael, my friend. I'll make the same suggestion to you that I made to Larry. Why don't you see if you can wrap your arms around that load of baloney and go jump in the lake?
And by the way, I know you're not paying much attention to what's going on around here, but I distinctly recall recommending you address me as Mr. Seaspray. You can be very tiresome.
quote:Rafael, my friend. I'll make the same suggestion to you that I made to Larry. Why don't you see if you can wrap your arms around that load of baloney and go jump in the lake?
Seaspray, I hate to inform you of this, but that is an incorrect statement in that "Baloney" was a phrase frequently used by Martindale, not the man you so avidly worship.
Since you have completely submerged your personality in "Weirwille and Worshipping Nothing But the Weirwille," might I suggest you learn to twist and morph your face into the same VPW lookalike grimaces the legendary CG is reported to have expertly achieved?
And there should be several pertinent phrases that you should copy that are much more appropriately associated with Herr Doktor. And how hard could it be to manifest the one-handed Bible Thump so effortlessly used by Herr Doktor in several of his best films.
Remember: You worship Weirwille, not Martindale. Baloney is out.
Zixar, thanks, you caught me just in time. I'm hanging by my finger nails. I worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ too. I'm thankful for Paul, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, _and_ VPW but I don't worship them at all.
Ok, so far, so good.
VPW gave me Power for Abundant Living which taught me _how_ to worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in truth and in spirit.
One might quibble about this, but still ok...
What is "the Bible"?
Just because Vic " never claimed everything he taught in PFAL was by direct revelation of God" doesn't mean it isn't.
To be fair, he never claimed it was a complete fabrication, either. He did claim it was from research, though. If he got it directly from God, you'd think he'd proclaim that miracle.
Is it fact or truth?
"there is simply no basis in fact for believing that any of it was God-breathed"
Some of it is true, no argument there. Some stuff isn't, though. Where it lines up with God's Word, great! Where it doesn't, we have to believe God over a man, even VPW. Wierwille himself admittedly took ideas from other men, like Bullinger, BG Leonard, and others. It's silly to think that God breathed bits of the truth to other folks who also held different views from what VPW considered the truth.
It might be sinking in a little bit.
Okay, that's a start.
Think of it like this, there was gravity before Newton got bonked with that apple and figured it out for the first time. Newton didn't invent gravity, he just came up with a way to explain what was already there.
The basic idea behind PFAL, that the Bible could all make sense once you were willing to get rid of all the religious dogma around the silly bits (like "three days and three nights" beginning on Friday), that was an excellent idea and a noble goal. It's just obvious that he didn't get all of it right. It's an idea that can be built upon, and quite productively, too, IF AND ONLY IF WE TREAT WIERWILLE'S WORKS THE SAME AS ANY OTHER RELIGIOUS IDEAS THAT DON'T PRECISELY LINE UP WITH THE WORD OF GOD.
If we don't, if we enshrine VPW's works as sacrosanct, above suspicion, and written in stone from God's Own Finger, then we don't have power to live abundantly. We just have a new church looking for its own streetcorner.
Even the Mormons have some of God's Word right. In order to keep growing in God's grace, we have to search the Scriptures daily whether ALL these things were so. Wierwille's included. Where he's right, he's right. Where he's wrong, he's WRONG, and we're just as wrong if we follow him.
quote:And by the way, I know you're not paying much attention to what's going on around here, but I distinctly recall recommending you address me as Mr. Seaspray. You can be very tiresome.
When you start acting like an individual with an independent mind, I will start treating you like one. As long as you keep acting like a spoiled, namecalling, disrespectful obnoxious brat, I will continue treating you like one. Now go fetch a brain. There's a storm tonight.
Is the food fight over? Is it safe to come out now?
I prefer one subject at a time for focus. Instead of food fights, and instead of splattering many topics at once all over, I prefer to ponder these things more deeply.
Right now I'm still pondering the "then" on page 88 of PFAL that you have put in bold fonts many many posts ago. It was on page 10, on March 11, at 07:30 hours.
Unless it was responded to somewhere in amongst the blueberry pie flinging and the machine gun bursts of canned soggy peas, my question still stands as to why you see Dr's "then" as indicating time in the Biblical account.
I see a possibility of the "then" referring to what Dr suggests should be logically recognized next by the student.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Would you like it if Dr was proved right here? Or disappointd?
This is a little like the questions I've asked before, and then repeated in a paste. They are still unanswered.
Would you like it if ALL of these AEs were resolved with some time and effort?
Is getting down on Dr a goal in itself? If so, where does it lead?
Yet you claim your writings are of God so why doesnt your god see to it they can be held up to a test of time and the test of questioning???
Mike if you can debunk the errors (god be with you) then you could have a huge following and the word would be more than "available".
It would be real and at least able to be considered as a possiible solution.
till then it seems everyone is in circles with YOU just saying well it is about whether we like or dislike vpw.
Many here are interested in your answers of which you address very few actual errors.
It appears to make you stupid and in love with an idea. geez Mike anyone can do that.
make it real make it happen pray to God you can get His revelation to the masses.
That is how twi got started the whole baseline of why people took the class!!!!!
But we are wiser now , looked at it, found errors, grew up to what Jesus christ asked us to be adults not swayed by every word...
then comes your arrogance from twi and why it failed to continue in a message....and fails now.
you can not because you believe we are unworthy of the message, and I do not believe Jesus Christ feels that way towards us, He died so we can understand Gods will.
or as you think we are a butch of hating mean talking fools who God refuses to give knowledge to because he only likes you and your message which you wont/cant defend under questioning.
Mike: The more actual errors you can conclusively resolve, the better. Ultimately, though, you have to resolve them all in order for your claims that PFAL was just as God-breathed as the rest of the Word to have any merit.
Unless, of course, Wierwille was wrong when he said that one misplaced preposition would make the Word fall to pieces. Since that's in PFAL too, though, it can't be both God-breathed and wrong at the same time.
As for "then" not being time-based but logic-based, it cannot be. The prior sentences from p. 87 should be included, too:
quote:Nathan said, “You are the man.†At that moment(time-based--Z.) David recognized the truth of what Nathan was bringing from God and David said, “Well, I am sorry.†He turned to God and asked God to forgive him. Then("in the context"--therefore, still time-based.--Z.) it says in the Word of God that David was a man after God’s own heart. He was not after God’s heart when he was out fooling around with Bathsheba and having Uriah killed; no, but when he was back in line, David was a man after God’s own heart.
PFAL, pp. 87-88
David also did not say "Well, I am sorry." This phrase does not occur in 2 Samuel anywhere. That's a quibble hardly worth mentioning in a man-authored book, but an outright falsehood if it's in the infallible Word of God.
Regarding David's "then" on page 88 of the PFAL book, we’ve discussed only a small portion so far, but I'm now ready to present more. I'm normally slow moving at these things as a matter of policy, but there’s an additional factor here that delayed me. You may remember that my first reaction to seeing this particular AE a few months ago was one of "What's the problem?" It took me a while to see where you were going with it and why.
The topic here is David's heart toward God, not God's to David. God is always love, but David went through some changes. In the overall picture of this topic I see three periods of time and three corresponding conditions of David's heart:
.
................ TIME PERIOD.............................DAVID'S CONDITION
#1 Before Bathsheba and Uriah .......................after God's own heart
#2 During Bathsheba and Uriah...............NOT after God's own heart
#3 After Repenting from B & U.........................after God's own heart
It says on page 88:
“Nathan said, "You are the man." At that moment David recognized the
truth of what Nathan was bringing from God and David said, "Well, I am
sorry." He turned to God and asked God to forgive him. Then it says in
the Word of God that David was a man after God's own heart. He was
not after God's heart when he was out fooling around with Bathsheba
and having Uriah killed; no, but when he was back in line, David was a
man after God's own heart.â€
Let’s rightly divide what’s written here with respect to the three logical periods I have identified. I’m going to chop this paragraph up a bit.
the Word of God that David was a man after God's own heart.............â€
This is the sentence in question. My primary aim is to understand exactly what this sentence means, especially the word “then†which begins the sentence.
Ok, now we can see that periods #2 and #3 are being overtly discussed and contrasted. Period #1 is not mentioned. Some might say period #1 is implied in the sentence in question: “Then it says in the Word of God that David was a man after God's own heart.†However I do not see that at all.
I do NOT see this sentence as equivalently saying “Then, after this confession of guilt, it was written in the Bible that David BECAME a man after God's own heart for the first time right then and there.†Why would it say that? What would be the point? Why would Dr want to say that?
I can see the point of Dr contrasting #2 and #3 periods. But why would he bend over backwards to make an obscure point involving David not being “after God’s own heart†in period #1? And then, If Dr DID intend to bend over backwards and say that, where’s the follow up? Why would he leave it hanging in mid air and abandon this awkwardly made point?
I also see these two sentences as non equivalent in that there’s a difference between “the Word of God†and the Bible.
The Word of God is spiritual, eternal, and has existed throughout all time. The Bible had a beginning. There are things not recorded in the Bible that are recorded in the Word of God. Bullinger and others have noted that there are passages where God’s Word is quoted, but it’s a quote NOT of a previously written passage of the Bible, but of a previously SPOKEN passage of the Word of God. Also, logically, there are things that Jesus Christ will say to us at the gathering together, which are not recorded in the KJV, nor the Stevens, nor their originals.
I see the sentence in question as simply saying that when period #3 started David experienced a huge change in his heart, and this condition was immediately recognized by God Himself. As soon as David achieved this state of mind, God recorded in The Word Of God “Hey! Great going David! You’re a man after my own heart!†Many years later a similar phrase was a written into the Bible by divine inspiration, and it just so happened to be affixed to period #1.
The “then†on page 88 is referring to WHEN the good condition applied to David’s heart, and is NOT referring to when the good condition was written in the Bible nor which period the Bible passage attributed it to.
The error you thought you were pointing out was: “The PFAL book says the condition "after God's own heart" never began until period #3, which would contradict the Bible's saying it began in period #1.â€
On page 10 of this thread (March 11 at 07:30am) you wrote in harmony with and quoted Rafael thusly: "From Rafael Olmeda's web site on the subject: quote: Error 1, In PFAL, Wierwille writes that David is called "a man after God's own heart" only AFTER the events in II Samuel related to Bathsheba and Uriah."
Notice how you and Rafael ADD the word "only" to the mix in the above quote. Take the word “only†out of your phrase “...Wierwille writes that David is called "a man after God's own heart" only AFTER the events...†and your AE falls apart.
What you’re basically doing is inserting a hidden “only†into the sentence in question. If Dr wrote: “Only then does it say...†It would begin to be a problem.
If you then change “Word of God†to “Bible†then the sentence becomes: “Only then it says in the Bible that David was a man after God's own heart.†Now there would be a definite problem.
I just don’t see Dr having written it that way, nor did I EVER read it that way. This is why I had a hard time seeing the problem you were reporting. You have to be bending over backwards to see it your way. You have to WANT to see error in it, and it’s obvious you do want to. I implore you to re-think this through.
The PFAL book contrasts period #2 with period #3. God had Dr say it the way he said it to highly contrast the conditions of David's heart in periods #2 and #3. To bring in period #1 would be unnecessary, and would clutter the contrast. There’s no point in bringing in period #1.
After I thought this whole thing through I approached an old friend for his perspective.
A lot of mastering these books means getting locked onto DOCTOR’S vocabulary and HIS useage of words. We were taught that the written Word came by God giving the inspiration to men using THEIR vocabulary. To some degree, getting to know how Dr spoke and how he used the language will influence a reader in how they may receive this post’s sentence in question. To some degree I qualify as a practicing student-expert in discerning such subtleties in Dr’s use of the language. To that degree I can assure you that Dr was NOT saying in that sentence what you think he was saying.
I also want to offer you a higher degree of assurance in this matter than my own mere expertise. That’s why I approached my old friend for his perspective. This person was a grad of PFAL from the mid 1960’s and was a member of Dr’s cabinet in the 1970’s. He also helped Dr edit the PFAL book from the film transcript, and was an editor of the Way Magazine for a time. I figured he’d be a good judge of what Dr was saying in that sentence.
We talked several times by phone and e-mail, and I sent him a rough early draft of this post. While we did not see eye-to-eye (yet) on the special status of these books, we did agreed on each essential point of this post.
He agreed with me that you folks have read this Apparent Error into page 88, and then blamed it on VPW.
You got one person to agree with you in part. That really sets it in stone, huh ?
quote: I do NOT see this sentence as equivalently saying “Then, after this confession of guilt, it was written in the Bible that David BECAME a man after God's own heart for the first time right then and there.†Why would it say that? What would be the point? Why would Dr want to say that?
Why? Because Wierwille made a mistake - that is why. It is not even a big mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. He got the chronology wrong.
You do not see it because your hermeneutic approach will not allow you to see it. You have thus become blinded to any errors in PFAL.
But as Zixar noted, not only did VP get the chronology wrong he also gets David's actions wrong as well.
VPW writes:
“Nathan said, "You are the man." At that moment David recognized the truth of what Nathan was bringing from God and David said, "Well, I am sorry." He turned to God and asked God to forgive him.
This is a VPW's commentary on 2 Samuel 12:7 - 13. VPW claims that David turned to God and asked God to forgive him. Actually he did no such thing. The record in 2 Samuel 12:13 says: " And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die."
According to the record, David did not ask God for forgiveness, he instead confessed his sin to Nathan.
You assure me of your mastering because "you qualify as a practicing student-expert in discerning such subtleties in Dr's use of the language"
So you knew the way vpw spoke and leap to the assurance of ""that is NOT saying in that sentence what you think he was saying".
You guys must have been close huh??
oh boy speaking for what he meant to say now?
wow this is so important to you, to be an expert. In how vpw used language .
This makes you the grand poobaaa as well you know because vpw is dead and will stay dead , so no other person in this earth can now compete with your EXPERTISE!!!!!!!
haha YOU HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS YOU AND ONLY YOU NOW THAT HE IS DEAD because he can not tell you your wrong in what you think , and no one eles has this expert learning available anymore!!!!
you won we lost. no matter what! nice crooked play there dude.
what a life I am not judging you Mike I just do not understand how this helps your pride of being an expert . But it does..
Ok this whole spoken word as opposed to the bible oMG so if you believe a man is Gods man , then he can just use words and they are as HOLY as the bible???????
WOW MIKE so do they have to have a special look or skin color or religion or just who YOU think is good enough????
that is scary...
You know they have great medicines for those who think they hear vioces from a God with a messages now.....
I believe the bible is the truth and the bible is HOLY not a man who speaks words claiming to be from a god.
How can you be sure it isnt a delusional person ???
[This message was edited by mj412 on March 27, 2003 at 6:39.]
quote:Error 1, In PFAL, Wierwille writes that David is called "a man after God's own heart" only AFTER the events in II Samuel related to Bathsheba and Uriah."
Notice how you and Rafael ADD the word "only" to the mix in the above quote. Take the word “only†out of your phrase “...Wierwille writes that David is called "a man after God's own heart" only AFTER the events...†and your AE falls apart.
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:
quote:I do NOT see this sentence as equivalently saying “Then, after this confession of guilt, it was written in the Bible that David BECAME a man after God's own heart for the first time right then and there.†Why would it say that? What would be the point? Why would Dr want to say that?
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...
quote:The error you thought you were pointing out was: “The PFAL book says the condition "after God's own heart" never began until period #3, which would contradict the Bible's saying it began in period #1.â€
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.
quote:I also see these two sentences as non equivalent in that there’s a difference between “the Word of God†and the Bible.
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.
quote:The “then†on page 88 is referring to WHEN the good condition applied to David’s heart, and is NOT referring to when the good condition was written in the Bible nor which period the Bible passage attributed it to.
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.
quote:What you’re basically doing is inserting a hidden “only†into the sentence in question. If Dr wrote: “Only then does it say...†It would begin to be a problem.
I've addressed this already. The word "only" can be eliminated without affecting the actuality of this error.
quote:If you then change “Word of God†to “Bible†then the sentence becomes: “Only then it says in the Bible that David was a man after God's own heart.†Now there would be a definite problem.
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.
quote:You have to be bending over backwards to see it your way. You have to WANT to see error in it, and it’s obvious you do want to. I implore you to re-think this through.
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.]
There is a huge difference between the Bible and The Word of God.
This difference is part of the physical/spirtitual dichotomy that has come up at times here in various topics.
This dichotomy comes up in MANY of Dr's teachings, but like me for decades, most people have not yet trained themselves to spot these sometimes subtle differences.
This dichotomy comes up SO many times in Dr's teachings that I am thinking of a new thread on it. I may call it "The Ubiquitous Teaching of VPW" because it's so everywhere present, but often only in faint hints.
Rafael, this difference between the Bible and The Word of God is great, and they cannot be both shoved into the same pidgeonhole. It's essential to dealing with this passage, and even more essential in others.
The Bible is in the 5-senses realm.
The Bible is the REVEALED Word of God, revealed in the 5-senses realm.
The Word of God is spiritual and cannot be understood by the natural man's mind.
The Bible, as wonderful as it is, is not as big a deal as The Word of God.
The Word of God has always existed, the Bible only existed in God's foreknowledge until written.
The essence of the PFAL passage under discussion is that there was a big contrast between period #2 and period #3.
There is no reference or followup on the notion that David's designation as "after God" was newly started in period #3 because that notion (mistaken notion) is NOT being brought up.
It's NOT chronology that's being asserted, it's CONTRAST that's being asserted.
The mistaken notion of chronology NEVER came up all throught the Seventies and Eighties. NO ONE received the PFAL text that way.
It takes researchers who have a pre-determined bias to find, wrench, and twist that passage to make it say chronology.
No one ever got misled by this freshly manufactured "error" in the text.
[This message was edited by Mike on March 29, 2003 at 8:08.]
Almost every word in a large dictionary has multiple definitions; multiple useages of words are the norm.
The reason there are more than one useage of a particular word is because that's how people use that word.
To assert that any one person confines and restricts themselves to ONE and only ONE useage of a particular word, leaving all other useages for others, is ludicrous.
I reject the notion that Dr’s use of the word “then†in this passage is constricted to the bounds of other places where he uses this same word.
[This message was edited by Mike on March 29, 2003 at 8:07.]
The essence of the PFAL passage under discussion is that there was a big contrast between period #2 and period #3.
Agreed. That's the ESSENCE. I agree wholeheartedly. I have no trouble whatsoever seeing that.
quote:There is no reference or followup on the notion that David's designation as "after God" was newly started in period #3 because that notion (mistaken notion) is NOT being brought up.
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.
quote:It's NOT chronology that's being asserted, it's CONTRAST that's being asserted.
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.
quote:The mistaken notion of chronology NEVER came up all throught the Seventiess and Eighties. NO ONE received the PFAL text that way.
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.
quote:It takes researchers who have a pre-determined bias to find, wrench, and twist that passage to make it say chronology.
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.
quote:No one ever got misled by this freshly manufactured "error" in the text.
Because it doesn't matter - unless you insist it's not an error. Really, your dodging of this simple truth is comical.
quote:Rafael, this difference between the Bible and The Word of God is great, and they cannot be both shoved into the same pigeonhole. It's essential to dealing with this passage, and even more essential in others.
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?
quote: Almost every word in a large dictionary has multiple definitions; multiple useages of words are the norm.
The reason there are more than one useage of a particular word is because that's how people use that word.
To assert that any one person confines and restricts themselves to ONE and only ONE useage of a particular word, leaving all other useages for others, is ludicrous.
Which is precisely why Mr. Weirwille was so laughably dishonest when he triumphantly pounced on the alleged "difference" between "throughly" (the Old English version of thoroughly) and "thoroughly." I noticed you ignorantly repeated this bald-faced lie recently, Mike. But apparently it is not at all "ludicrous" when your beloved Mr. Weirwille does it, eh?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
58
236
44
53
Popular Days
Dec 29
100
Mar 8
77
Jan 5
74
Dec 27
59
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 58 posts
Mike 236 posts
Tom Strange 44 posts
OldSkool 53 posts
Popular Days
Dec 29 2022
100 posts
Mar 8 2004
77 posts
Jan 5 2003
74 posts
Dec 27 2002
59 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
Great posts Rocky & Waysider ! Sometimes wierwille apologetics make me think of an Old Testament passage: 20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and
Bolshevik
He tells them to be joyful. Doesn't explain how. The Word says be joyful *POOF* you are now joyful. Like when claiming verses. Craftily disconnects the motive from the action. . . .
WordWolf
Yes. BTW, anyone who wants a quick summary of the main points of that entire transcript, it's simple. I said it before: "Serving people is important for Christians. Therefore, master
Posted Images
WordWolf
In case anyone thinks the question
"what's the difference between the Bible and
the Word of God as defined in PFAL" hasn't been
beaten to its death already, I'll chime in.
---------------------------------------------
From PFAL Session I-"The Greatest Secret in
the World",
Listening with a Purpose, Question 1.
'What is the greatest secret in the world
today?'
Answer, as given in harmony in each class, as
quoted from the cue cards used by vpw...
"The greatest secret in the world today is that
the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of
God."
This also appears in the Advanced Class
Review books.
Those who can recite large sections of PFAL
should all be able to chant that in harmony.
Those who can only recite small snippets of
PFAL should all be able to chant that in
harmony.
Since it's in the opening minutes of Session I,
and is the TITLE of said session, anyone serious
about "mastering PFAL", one would imagine,
SHOULD encounter this material VERY, VERY
EARLY in their efforts to "master" it.
(If one does not start at the top of the first
session, where DOES one start?)
Of course, the opening segment also declares
that PFAL is "a class on KEYS" not "the
revealed Word and Will of God" , which MIGHT
also pose a problem if one has decided to
dogmatically ignore PFAL's internal testimony
about itself.
CLFOBS Ministries. Join NOW!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seaspray
Zixar, thanks, you caught me just in time. I'm hanging by my finger nails. I worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ too. I'm thankful for Paul, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and VPW but I don't worship them at all. VPW gave me Power for Abundant Living which taught me how to worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in truth and in spirit.
What is "the Bible"?
Just because Vic " never claimed everything he taught in PFAL was by direct revelation of God" doesn't mean it isn't.
Is it fact or truth?
"there is simply no basis in fact for believing that any of it was God-breathed"
It might be sinking in a little bit.
Rafael, my friend. I'll make the same suggestion to you that I made to Larry. Why don't you see if you can wrap your arms around that load of baloney and go jump in the lake?
And by the way, I know you're not paying much attention to what's going on around here, but I distinctly recall recommending you address me as Mr. Seaspray. You can be very tiresome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seaspray
WordWolf, pay attention. There'll be a quiz later.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry P2
Seaspray, I hate to inform you of this, but that is an incorrect statement in that "Baloney" was a phrase frequently used by Martindale, not the man you so avidly worship.
Since you have completely submerged your personality in "Weirwille and Worshipping Nothing But the Weirwille," might I suggest you learn to twist and morph your face into the same VPW lookalike grimaces the legendary CG is reported to have expertly achieved?
And there should be several pertinent phrases that you should copy that are much more appropriately associated with Herr Doktor. And how hard could it be to manifest the one-handed Bible Thump so effortlessly used by Herr Doktor in several of his best films.
Remember: You worship Weirwille, not Martindale. Baloney is out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Okay, I'll respond bit by bit, in boldface:
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
Mike - now you've done it! Now I am going to start a whole website called "Mikewille".
Be warned. You will be outed and exposed.
Where did you claim your degree came from? Hmmmmm ... we must look into that for starters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
When you start acting like an individual with an independent mind, I will start treating you like one. As long as you keep acting like a spoiled, namecalling, disrespectful obnoxious brat, I will continue treating you like one. Now go fetch a brain. There's a storm tonight.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Seaspray:
A) Please add some steak to that sizzle.
"More matter with less art."
B) You've succeeded in demonstrating rather poor
manners across the board. For all the cricitism
and charges I give Mike, we have yet to devolve
into name-calling and screaming matches. You've
not demonstrated this same level of maturity.
I actually was going to advocate giving you
a bit of slack and seeing if you'd rise to the
occassion, but I'll save myself the trouble.
CLFOBS Ministries. Join NOW!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Can't we all just get along?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'd prefer it, but someone keeps spraying
invective like a skunk.
(No pun intended.)
CLFOBS Ministries. Join NOW!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Zixar,
TRUCE!
Is the food fight over? Is it safe to come out now?
I prefer one subject at a time for focus. Instead of food fights, and instead of splattering many topics at once all over, I prefer to ponder these things more deeply.
Right now I'm still pondering the "then" on page 88 of PFAL that you have put in bold fonts many many posts ago. It was on page 10, on March 11, at 07:30 hours.
Unless it was responded to somewhere in amongst the blueberry pie flinging and the machine gun bursts of canned soggy peas, my question still stands as to why you see Dr's "then" as indicating time in the Biblical account.
I see a possibility of the "then" referring to what Dr suggests should be logically recognized next by the student.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Would you like it if Dr was proved right here? Or disappointd?
This is a little like the questions I've asked before, and then repeated in a paste. They are still unanswered.
Would you like it if ALL of these AEs were resolved with some time and effort?
Is getting down on Dr a goal in itself? If so, where does it lead?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Where does it lead?
hahahaha
well the same place your writings lead of course!
Yet you claim your writings are of God so why doesnt your god see to it they can be held up to a test of time and the test of questioning???
Mike if you can debunk the errors (god be with you) then you could have a huge following and the word would be more than "available".
It would be real and at least able to be considered as a possiible solution.
till then it seems everyone is in circles with YOU just saying well it is about whether we like or dislike vpw.
Many here are interested in your answers of which you address very few actual errors.
It appears to make you stupid and in love with an idea. geez Mike anyone can do that.
make it real make it happen pray to God you can get His revelation to the masses.
That is how twi got started the whole baseline of why people took the class!!!!!
But we are wiser now , looked at it, found errors, grew up to what Jesus christ asked us to be adults not swayed by every word...
then comes your arrogance from twi and why it failed to continue in a message....and fails now.
you can not because you believe we are unworthy of the message, and I do not believe Jesus Christ feels that way towards us, He died so we can understand Gods will.
or as you think we are a butch of hating mean talking fools who God refuses to give knowledge to because he only likes you and your message which you wont/cant defend under questioning.
one heck of a choice of what your selling MIke.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Mike: The more actual errors you can conclusively resolve, the better. Ultimately, though, you have to resolve them all in order for your claims that PFAL was just as God-breathed as the rest of the Word to have any merit.
Unless, of course, Wierwille was wrong when he said that one misplaced preposition would make the Word fall to pieces. Since that's in PFAL too, though, it can't be both God-breathed and wrong at the same time.
As for "then" not being time-based but logic-based, it cannot be. The prior sentences from p. 87 should be included, too:
PFAL, pp. 87-88David also did not say "Well, I am sorry." This phrase does not occur in 2 Samuel anywhere. That's a quibble hardly worth mentioning in a man-authored book, but an outright falsehood if it's in the infallible Word of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seaspray
Rafeal, call anything you like. Just don't call me late for dinner.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Zixar,
Regarding David's "then" on page 88 of the PFAL book, we’ve discussed only a small portion so far, but I'm now ready to present more. I'm normally slow moving at these things as a matter of policy, but there’s an additional factor here that delayed me. You may remember that my first reaction to seeing this particular AE a few months ago was one of "What's the problem?" It took me a while to see where you were going with it and why.
The topic here is David's heart toward God, not God's to David. God is always love, but David went through some changes. In the overall picture of this topic I see three periods of time and three corresponding conditions of David's heart:
.
................ TIME PERIOD.............................DAVID'S CONDITION
#1 Before Bathsheba and Uriah .......................after God's own heart
#2 During Bathsheba and Uriah...............NOT after God's own heart
#3 After Repenting from B & U.........................after God's own heart
It says on page 88:
“Nathan said, "You are the man." At that moment David recognized the
truth of what Nathan was bringing from God and David said, "Well, I am
sorry." He turned to God and asked God to forgive him. Then it says in
the Word of God that David was a man after God's own heart. He was
not after God's heart when he was out fooling around with Bathsheba
and having Uriah killed; no, but when he was back in line, David was a
man after God's own heart.â€
Let’s rightly divide what’s written here with respect to the three logical periods I have identified. I’m going to chop this paragraph up a bit.
************************************************************
“Nathan said, "You are the man." At that moment David recognized the
truth of what Nathan was bringing from God and David said, "Well, I am
sorry." He turned to God and asked God to forgive him........................â€
This relates the beginning of period #3.
************************************************************
“.............................................................................
.........Then it says in
the Word of God that David was a man after God's own heart.............â€
This is the sentence in question. My primary aim is to understand exactly what this sentence means, especially the word “then†which begins the sentence.
************************************************************
“.............................................................................
................... He was
not after God's heart when he was out fooling around with Bathsheba
and having Uriah killed; no,..................................................................â€
This refers to period #2.
************************************************************
“.......................................... but when he was back in line, David was a
man after God's own heart.â€
Again, period #3 is referred to here.
************************************************************
Ok, now we can see that periods #2 and #3 are being overtly discussed and contrasted. Period #1 is not mentioned. Some might say period #1 is implied in the sentence in question: “Then it says in the Word of God that David was a man after God's own heart.†However I do not see that at all.
I do NOT see this sentence as equivalently saying “Then, after this confession of guilt, it was written in the Bible that David BECAME a man after God's own heart for the first time right then and there.†Why would it say that? What would be the point? Why would Dr want to say that?
I can see the point of Dr contrasting #2 and #3 periods. But why would he bend over backwards to make an obscure point involving David not being “after God’s own heart†in period #1? And then, If Dr DID intend to bend over backwards and say that, where’s the follow up? Why would he leave it hanging in mid air and abandon this awkwardly made point?
I also see these two sentences as non equivalent in that there’s a difference between “the Word of God†and the Bible.
The Word of God is spiritual, eternal, and has existed throughout all time. The Bible had a beginning. There are things not recorded in the Bible that are recorded in the Word of God. Bullinger and others have noted that there are passages where God’s Word is quoted, but it’s a quote NOT of a previously written passage of the Bible, but of a previously SPOKEN passage of the Word of God. Also, logically, there are things that Jesus Christ will say to us at the gathering together, which are not recorded in the KJV, nor the Stevens, nor their originals.
I see the sentence in question as simply saying that when period #3 started David experienced a huge change in his heart, and this condition was immediately recognized by God Himself. As soon as David achieved this state of mind, God recorded in The Word Of God “Hey! Great going David! You’re a man after my own heart!†Many years later a similar phrase was a written into the Bible by divine inspiration, and it just so happened to be affixed to period #1.
The “then†on page 88 is referring to WHEN the good condition applied to David’s heart, and is NOT referring to when the good condition was written in the Bible nor which period the Bible passage attributed it to.
*************************************************************
The error you thought you were pointing out was: “The PFAL book says the condition "after God's own heart" never began until period #3, which would contradict the Bible's saying it began in period #1.â€
On page 10 of this thread (March 11 at 07:30am) you wrote in harmony with and quoted Rafael thusly: "From Rafael Olmeda's web site on the subject: quote: Error 1, In PFAL, Wierwille writes that David is called "a man after God's own heart" only AFTER the events in II Samuel related to Bathsheba and Uriah."
Notice how you and Rafael ADD the word "only" to the mix in the above quote. Take the word “only†out of your phrase “...Wierwille writes that David is called "a man after God's own heart" only AFTER the events...†and your AE falls apart.
What you’re basically doing is inserting a hidden “only†into the sentence in question. If Dr wrote: “Only then does it say...†It would begin to be a problem.
If you then change “Word of God†to “Bible†then the sentence becomes: “Only then it says in the Bible that David was a man after God's own heart.†Now there would be a definite problem.
I just don’t see Dr having written it that way, nor did I EVER read it that way. This is why I had a hard time seeing the problem you were reporting. You have to be bending over backwards to see it your way. You have to WANT to see error in it, and it’s obvious you do want to. I implore you to re-think this through.
**************************************************
The PFAL book contrasts period #2 with period #3. God had Dr say it the way he said it to highly contrast the conditions of David's heart in periods #2 and #3. To bring in period #1 would be unnecessary, and would clutter the contrast. There’s no point in bringing in period #1.
After I thought this whole thing through I approached an old friend for his perspective.
A lot of mastering these books means getting locked onto DOCTOR’S vocabulary and HIS useage of words. We were taught that the written Word came by God giving the inspiration to men using THEIR vocabulary. To some degree, getting to know how Dr spoke and how he used the language will influence a reader in how they may receive this post’s sentence in question. To some degree I qualify as a practicing student-expert in discerning such subtleties in Dr’s use of the language. To that degree I can assure you that Dr was NOT saying in that sentence what you think he was saying.
I also want to offer you a higher degree of assurance in this matter than my own mere expertise. That’s why I approached my old friend for his perspective. This person was a grad of PFAL from the mid 1960’s and was a member of Dr’s cabinet in the 1970’s. He also helped Dr edit the PFAL book from the film transcript, and was an editor of the Way Magazine for a time. I figured he’d be a good judge of what Dr was saying in that sentence.
We talked several times by phone and e-mail, and I sent him a rough early draft of this post. While we did not see eye-to-eye (yet) on the special status of these books, we did agreed on each essential point of this post.
He agreed with me that you folks have read this Apparent Error into page 88, and then blamed it on VPW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Wow Mike,
You got one person to agree with you in part. That really sets it in stone, huh ?
Why? Because Wierwille made a mistake - that is why. It is not even a big mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. He got the chronology wrong.
You do not see it because your hermeneutic approach will not allow you to see it. You have thus become blinded to any errors in PFAL.
But as Zixar noted, not only did VP get the chronology wrong he also gets David's actions wrong as well.
VPW writes:
“Nathan said, "You are the man." At that moment David recognized the truth of what Nathan was bringing from God and David said, "Well, I am sorry." He turned to God and asked God to forgive him.
This is a VPW's commentary on 2 Samuel 12:7 - 13. VPW claims that David turned to God and asked God to forgive him. Actually he did no such thing. The record in 2 Samuel 12:13 says: " And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die."
According to the record, David did not ask God for forgiveness, he instead confessed his sin to Nathan.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
mike
You assure me of your mastering because "you qualify as a practicing student-expert in discerning such subtleties in Dr's use of the language"
So you knew the way vpw spoke and leap to the assurance of ""that is NOT saying in that sentence what you think he was saying".
You guys must have been close huh??
oh boy speaking for what he meant to say now?
wow this is so important to you, to be an expert. In how vpw used language .
This makes you the grand poobaaa as well you know because vpw is dead and will stay dead , so no other person in this earth can now compete with your EXPERTISE!!!!!!!
haha YOU HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS YOU AND ONLY YOU NOW THAT HE IS DEAD because he can not tell you your wrong in what you think , and no one eles has this expert learning available anymore!!!!
you won we lost. no matter what! nice crooked play there dude.
what a life I am not judging you Mike I just do not understand how this helps your pride of being an expert . But it does..
Ok this whole spoken word as opposed to the bible oMG so if you believe a man is Gods man , then he can just use words and they are as HOLY as the bible???????
WOW MIKE so do they have to have a special look or skin color or religion or just who YOU think is good enough????
that is scary...
You know they have great medicines for those who think they hear vioces from a God with a messages now.....
I believe the bible is the truth and the bible is HOLY not a man who speaks words claiming to be from a god.
How can you be sure it isnt a delusional person ???
[This message was edited by mj412 on March 27, 2003 at 6:39.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
There is a huge difference between the Bible and The Word of God.
This difference is part of the physical/spirtitual dichotomy that has come up at times here in various topics.
This dichotomy comes up in MANY of Dr's teachings, but like me for decades, most people have not yet trained themselves to spot these sometimes subtle differences.
This dichotomy comes up SO many times in Dr's teachings that I am thinking of a new thread on it. I may call it "The Ubiquitous Teaching of VPW" because it's so everywhere present, but often only in faint hints.
Rafael, this difference between the Bible and The Word of God is great, and they cannot be both shoved into the same pidgeonhole. It's essential to dealing with this passage, and even more essential in others.
The Bible is in the 5-senses realm.
The Bible is the REVEALED Word of God, revealed in the 5-senses realm.
The Word of God is spiritual and cannot be understood by the natural man's mind.
The Bible, as wonderful as it is, is not as big a deal as The Word of God.
The Word of God has always existed, the Bible only existed in God's foreknowledge until written.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The essence of the PFAL passage under discussion is that there was a big contrast between period #2 and period #3.
There is no reference or followup on the notion that David's designation as "after God" was newly started in period #3 because that notion (mistaken notion) is NOT being brought up.
It's NOT chronology that's being asserted, it's CONTRAST that's being asserted.
The mistaken notion of chronology NEVER came up all throught the Seventies and Eighties. NO ONE received the PFAL text that way.
It takes researchers who have a pre-determined bias to find, wrench, and twist that passage to make it say chronology.
No one ever got misled by this freshly manufactured "error" in the text.
[This message was edited by Mike on March 29, 2003 at 8:08.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Almost every word in a large dictionary has multiple definitions; multiple useages of words are the norm.
The reason there are more than one useage of a particular word is because that's how people use that word.
To assert that any one person confines and restricts themselves to ONE and only ONE useage of a particular word, leaving all other useages for others, is ludicrous.
I reject the notion that Dr’s use of the word “then†in this passage is constricted to the bounds of other places where he uses this same word.
[This message was edited by Mike on March 29, 2003 at 8:07.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry P2
Which is precisely why Mr. Weirwille was so laughably dishonest when he triumphantly pounced on the alleged "difference" between "throughly" (the Old English version of thoroughly) and "thoroughly." I noticed you ignorantly repeated this bald-faced lie recently, Mike. But apparently it is not at all "ludicrous" when your beloved Mr. Weirwille does it, eh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Larry,
The point of Dr teaching "throughly" was how important it is to be careful in reading, NOT English literature and etymology.
Maybe you missed that.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.