Actual Errors in PFAL

[lindyhopper]

Zix, Georgio,

Anyone who has seen a good fung foo film should have figured that one out. Why didn't I see that one. This did give people an idea of how long your interpretation should be if you wanted to look legit. But they couldn't control that could they? It was by inspiration of God wasn't it. ;)-->

[Zixar]

lindyhopper: You're right about the genetics of blood typing. The example just illustrates another place where VPW used a verse of scripture (Lev 17:11) to justify an erroneous idea he had. He was so fond of that "scientific precision", after all... ;)-->

Leviticus isn't even talking about genetics or Jesus in 17:11, but it sure sounded good, and easy to blow past a captive audience.

I think it's because I caught that one the first time through the class that I didn't fall as deeply into Wierwille-worship as some did. Heck, it was those "keys" in PFAL that showed me where all the leadership wasn't acting according to God's Word and got me out in the first place.

So, to TWI, I say, "Thanks for the Word, guys, but you stopped practicing it long ago, so you'll have to forgive me for not letting you preach it to me anymore."

God bless!

Zix

[Zixar]

lindy: Yep, it's true. Here's a link, complete with a photostat of the death certificate signed by Dr. Winegarner. He died of metastatic liver cancer.

http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_DEATH.htm

Edited January 3, 2003 by Guest

[RottieGrrrl]

Lindyhopper:

No I don't know this! I always bought into the blood coming from the fathers sperm, and the children having the same blood type as the father. And the JC having perfect blood made absolute sense to me. I really am going to have to check this out.

Georgio: That is an excellent observation. That whole class didn't sit comfortably with me at, all. But I was in..er..abeyance?

I also think they put way to much importance on getting people to do all that. It really got in the way of peoples deliverence and walk.

...It's hard to be humble when you own a Rottweiler...

Edited January 3, 2003 by Guest

[Zixar]

Rottie: If it were true, then everyone would have the same blood type as their father. I don't, for one. (I'm O+, he was A+.)

It doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus wasn't perfect; it may have been that Mary was the only person to have the exact genetic sequence in that one egg cell that was necessary to produce the perfect Messiah. It wasn't merely an all-dominant gene sequencing either--after all, the gene for extra fingers or toes is dominant, and there's no record that Jesus had twelve fingers. (Granted, it would have made it easier to count the apostles, but still... ;)--> )

But we're moving away from the topic...

[simonzelotes]

I think the idea of "practice sessions" for the manifestations was a little out there. With tongues,if WHAT I speak is God's business,why do I need to practice it and get fluent at it?....We also "practiced" interpretation and prophecy in the intermediate class,and "ministering" in the advanced class....Seems like God's will,or inspiration,or revelation would be clear enough to not need to practice carrying it out.......

[lindyhopper]

Simon-

I also thought about that. I wrote a little about that in "My story". Here it is..

quote:

---

If you took a five year old and told him to more or less make up his own laguage and practise it in your head everyday and out loud in meetigs 2 or 3 times a week for twenty years how do you think hw would do? How authentic do you think it would sound? Now throw into the mix that this person hears others do it a couple of times a week all their life. Lets not forget the Inter. Cl. and those practise sessions. quiet. louder. faster. now start with the letter "A". Did any of you do that? A-Z in your tounge? If I move my mouth, tounge, lips throat, etc. and God give me the words. How do I determine to start with the letter S? and If I determine what let I start with how am I not determining the rest of the sounds? How do I know that the tounge supposedly of men or of angles had the sound "ch"? I thought maybe since I grew up with it maybe it was different for others. Maybe it was just second nature for me. Then I started to notice that some in fellowdang some old grads some new grads would say the same. phase over and over again the only way they changed was to "practise more" or to decide to have a versitile tounge.

---

I don't mean to go off topic, but I don't think I am. I haven't totally closed the door on SIT or a lot of things. It is obviously in the Bible. But, if that was a falacy then it was a major one.

[RottieGrrrl]

I Don't think ANY of this is OT! I mean were talking about inaccuracies in PFAL right?

And Zixar! You just woke me up! I took it as gospel that the dads blood was always the kids blood too. and Vica Versa.

Hey, I'm a science flunkee, but why the heck didn't anyone ever catch this back then? this is what was taught!

[RottieGrrrl]

Simon and Lindy excellent points you both make. and I KNOW i copied a tongue of two from people. Sorry to Double post but I just read your things.

[Raf]

I need to research what Wierwille actually wrote about blood in order to respond to this stuff. It is interesting.

As for the stuff about tongues, I wonder if that falls into the category of differences of opinion regarding interpretation. It is precisely why I am avoiding discussion of the intermediate class, as it does not really exist in written form.

Carry on.

[Raf]

I miss Jerry Barrax. Here's another Jerry Gem.

quote:

---

VP insists Nathan was hesitant to reprove David because he was afraid David would have him beheaded. There is nothing in the Scripture to support such a claim.

---

Wow. It's true:

In PFAL Wierwille writes that Nathan was afraid to reprove and correct David, specifically because David was good at beheading people.

In truth, we have no record whatsoever of ANY reluctance on Nathan's part, much less a reason for that reluctance.

Afterthought: Does Wierwille admit to speculating here? If so, that removes this statement as an actual error. Speculating about the events leading up to a Biblical account is a fun way to engage readers in a sermon/teaching. So, when I get home, I'll check.

[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 03, 2003 at 11:02.]

Edited January 3, 2003 by Guest

[def59]

The verse that has Aramaic and is translated My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me? is a quote from a verse in pslams. That Jesus, always quoting Scripture. Well it HIS book after all.

VPW's whole point was to tear down the accepted Bible and pump up his revelation. Is it any wonder he was making it sound like God had sex with Mary to produce Jesus?

As for tongues. unbelievers can speak in tongues. Evew Wierwille says he faked it for Oral Roberts in Tulsa.

How many of us really copied sounds and words from other people. And it my area, all interpreation and prophecy sounded the same and sounded like King Jimmy V.

Thanks Rafael for a greath thread.

[Oakspear]

Re: the "dominant genes":

VP & LCM taught that the genetic information that God via holy spirit provided "would have been" dominant. Dominant does not mean better in genetics. Brown eyes are a dominant characteristic, blues eyes are recessive; one is not better than the other.

Re: SIT practice sessions:

"Primitive" cultures do not necessarily have simpler languages. Just because the language sounded strange (gee, guh, goo) does not make it less complex. Languages have varying numbers of sounds, some many, some few, and that number has no bearing on the level of complexity.

The whole practice sessions concept was bunk. Only a limited number of languages have the same "alphabet" that we do, and among those, fewer have the exact same sounds. (try to pronounce the Welsh "LL", or the clicks and pops in Xhosa, or even the "ch" in Hebrew or German)

The tongue and interpretation being the same length is garbage also. Not only are words longer or shorter (as in the Spanish example) but sometimes one language lacks a single word for a concept, so a sentence must be substituted.

Oakspear

...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

[Mandii]

Yes I remember VP teaching that Nathan was afraid to confront David. I remember VP saying that if Nathan went to David with any other story rather than the story God told Nathan to say concering the two men and the lamb story..David would have his head as "David would just love to have the prophet's head," (VP using the chopping motion at his neck. What NEVER made sense to me is if David WAS a man after God's own heart..why would he have killed the MOG??? Or wanted to.

Also, the way *I* heard it..Jesus Christ came so we all could have Holy Spirit IN us as opposed to on us as the OT believers. Yet, John the Baptist had Holy Spirit before He was ever born. Why? Why could this be? If God could make an exception for one, not for all? This was a question I asked back then at my very first PFAL class. No one could answer.

How about Paul's thorn in in the flesh? Was it really people..?

[Zixar]

Mandii: I think the answers to the seeming dilemma were actually covered in PFAL, believe it or not. Didn't VPW say something along the lines of "when you come to something you don't understand or can't make fit, just leave it. Believe it or just leave it." Something like that.

Anyhoo, that was TWI's ultimate problem. When they came to something that they couldn't understand, they couldn't "just leave it." It's been brought up before that part of the problem with a "biblical research ministry" is the nagging need to churn out "new" research all the time--even if that "research" turns out to depend on stretching a single word so far out of context it was unrecognizable. As long as it was "new", it was pure money. ("Athletes of the Spirit" ring a bell? Oh, we're not "warriors", we're "athletes", and it's not a "shield", it's a "discus"....etc., etc. Blech.)

What was worse was when destructive practices got jammed into what was otherwise recognizable as "The Word". "All the women belong to the king", "abortion isn't murder", pick your favorite excuse out of the Appendix of the Schoenheit adultery paper.

Would to God that they had simply "just left it." Well, pride goeth before destruction, as the Word says...

Edited January 3, 2003 by Guest

[firebee]

Something that I remeber from PFAL is that Jesus did not have holy spirit until he was baptized by John, and that was "proof" that Jesus was not God.

[Vertical Limit]

Put this on another thread earlier

Acts 21:14 And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.

I don't think vpw got this one right. vp teaches that they continued to tell Paul to do the will of the Lord which was to not go to jerusalem by removing the commas and the "be done".

No I don't think so.

I think the commas are correctly supplied to indicate that that they stopped persuading Paul to not go to jerusalem and that they believed the will of the Lord would be done regardless of Paul going to jerusalem or not.

That's my take on the verse.

[Zixar]

Vertical: Actually, I think that one could really go VPW's way. Anyone out there know Greek well enough to determine if the punctuation is correct or not in the Stephens interlinear?

[firebee]

Doesn't verse 14 fall into context with the prohet Agabus and what he prophesied about Paul's girdle?

[Vertical Limit]

Zixar

It says they did cease the persuading. So then how could they continue to tell Paul to not go to jerusalem if they ceased? vp claims they were continuing to say "don't go to jerusalem" and what vp says the verse is saying.

So they ceased saying don't go to jerusalem and said the will of the Lord be done. So the meaning of that phrase could be speculated on I suppose. I don't think it says Paul was "outside of the will of the Lord" or "out of fellowship" like vp taught.

But like I said it's my take on the verse-not god-breathed or something.

[Zixar]

VLimit: I don't recall hearing VPW say that they continued to say anything. His take was that it should read "we ceased saying 'the will of the Lord be done'" without the commas. Verse 14 is the last anyone says anything to Paul about it, so it looks like they stopped trying to persuade him.

[Vertical Limit]

we ceased saying the will of the Lord be done

or

we ceased, saying, the will of the Lord be done

Somebody's got to be a liar!!!

Just kidding!!

The interlinear probably has the words in different places.

I still Don't think it says Paul was "outside of the will of the Lord". Not that Paul couldn't be that way if he wanted to.

And I don't think he should have went but he did. Nothing new for God to work with. Paul just didn't get it from all those that were trying to help him that day.

Edited January 3, 2003 by Guest

[firebee]

I think this verse sets the context:

Act 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

Then further in the chapter:

Act 21:8 And the next [day] we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was [one] of the seven; and abode with him.

Act 21:9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy

Act 21:10 And as we tarried [there] many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.

Act 21:11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver [him] into the hands of the Gentiles.

Act 21:12 And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.

Act 21:13 Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.

Act 21:14 And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.

Act 21:15 And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem.

Without delving into the Greek I would have to agree with Zix, that VP may have gotten this one right. I think that everyone around Paul at that time, after several attempts to dissuade him from going on this journey to Jerusalem, basically quit saying "the will of the Lord be done" to Paul and they let him go on his way.

[Raf]

You guys aren't following the script. We're supposed to all hate Wierwille and be incapable of thinking he might be right on anything. We're never supposed to agree with him, ever. That would reflect independent thought, if we were able to agree with him sometimes and disagree other times. Now get back in line.

[firebee]

Sir, yes sir

I hate VP...I hate VP...I hate VP...I hate VP