I've got 25 errors listed so far, and I'm only up to page 8, and not done with Jerry Barrax's posts. Nine pages long so far (includes a one-page background sheet). This is going to be a long night.
I've got 27 that I'm comfortable with, I left out a bunch that I believe are errors, but I'm not sure they rise (or sink) to "actual error" status. At the very least, my argument for them doesn't do the trick for me.
The omitted "errors" are:
1. Wierwille's definition of faith vs. believing.
I just don't know how to phrase this one.
2. The image of God.
I think we can establish that Wierwille falls FAR SHORT of proving his case that the image of God is spirit. But can we actually say it's been refuted? I can't. That doesn't mean Wierwille is right. It just means that the error is interpretational.
3. Figures of speech
I still think I'm right about this one, but it's interpretational.
4. The profit in scripture.
While Steve made an excellent case for Wierwille's error, there's still one possible explanation that would validate Wierwille's theory that it should be doctrine, reproof and correction, summed up by the term "instruction in righteousness."
The explanation would be a figure of speech. Is there a figure of speech in which a list is provided, and the end of the list is the culmination of everything preceding? I don't have Bullinger's book, so I can't check. I'm sure some of you do. I'd love to hear an answer.
I'll post my list overnight and put a link on this thread (I'll also ask Pawtucket to place it as an article on the main page).
Pertaining to number one Faith vs. Believing I hope you at least include before THE faith came portion we all discussed because that is the ROOT of his problem. He doesn't believe there was faith in the old testament so he has to make up an advanced theology to cover. but the definite article is in the text -- it is not faith in the abstract.
quote:The explanation would be a figure of speech. Is there a figure of speech in which a list is provided, and the end of the list is the culmination of everything preceding? I don't have Bullinger's book, so I can't check. I'm sure some of you do. I'd love to hear an answer.
or maybe:
symperasma: when what has been said is briefly summed up
epitrochasmos: running lightly over by way of summary
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
#4 - When I posted my second piece on this error, I said the level of detail was going to be mid-range. I left out the figure of speech analysis (as well as most of the Greek) to keep my post from being so long it would put people to sleep. I consider this to be high-end detail, so I'm going to have to charge twice my original price. Believe me, it's worth every cent!
On page 146 of FSUB Bullinger used II Timothy 3:16 as an example of "asyndeton", or "no ands" (You get the cigar, Zix). This is what Bullinger had to say:
"2 Tim. iii. 16,17.-'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
-for doctrine,
-for reproof,
-for correction,
-for instruction in righteousness:
that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.'
"Here we are hurried on, and not asked to stop and consider each of the four things for which all Scripture is profitable: but we are asked especially to dwell on the *object* of it: viz., thoroughly to furnish: the man of God for all the circumstances in which he may be placed."
Bullinger's analysis says that the figure throws emphasis on "thoroughly to furnish", not "instruction in righteousness".
Furthermore, he wrote, "...we are... not asked to stop and consider each of the four things for which all Scripture is profitable." This suggests to me that the use of asyndeton indicates we are not to try to tease apart the four things. This impression is further strengthened by the singularity of the subject, "all scripture".
Yet on page 1660 of the "Companion Bible" Bullinger's passion for structure appears to have overcome his passion for figures of speech. There he set forth the idea that Romans, Ephesians and Thessalonians are profitable for doctrine; Corinthians and Philippians are profitable for reproof; while Galatians and Colossians are profitable for correction.
In order to make this structure work, distributing 4 profits among 7 epistles, Bullinger first reduced the number of profits from 4 to 3 by writing that "Doctrine and Instruction" are the same thing. But that still doesn't work out evenly, 3 profits among 7 epistles. So in the entry for Thessalonians he wrote, "...No 'reproof'. No 'correction'."
Bullinger contradicted his figure of speech analysis with his structure analysis. I don't think Bullinger's structure analysis is justified by what's actually written in Paul's epistles to the churches. What good is this "key" for "resolving apparent contradictions"? In seven years involvement with TWI, the only time I ever heard this principle invoked was when a person justifying Marindale's sexual predation (this was back in '87, for all you late comers) said that the injunctions against fornication and adultery in Corinthians didn't count, because those books "weren't for doctrine"! Hah! Double hah!!
I think Wierwille wanted to plagiarize Bullinger's structure analysis because it looked so cool, and sooo *learn-ed*. But he couldn't use Bullinger's method of reducing 4 profits to 3, because Wierwille also taught in other places that different words mean absolutely different things. So he plagiarized and twisted Berry's translation as I demonstrated in one of my previous posts on this particular actual error.
That's also why I think Wierwille's error regarding II Timothy 3:16 was thought through, deliberate, and not inadvertant.
EXCELLENT post Tw. That's a terriffic examination of all the aspects of the "image of God". Such a thorough and well-researched presentation makes the PFAL definition seem ridiculously simplistic.
Hey, Raf, since you're compiling, I'd like to add a new one. I don't think we've discussed Dr. Weirwille's definition of laleo, the Greek word for "speak" used in the verses relating to speaking in tongues. VP defined it as "to use the voice without reference to the words spoken". The way it was presented in such a narrow context, it seemed to make perfect sense, as if it was a special version of the word "speak" used only of inspired utterances.
But when you look at the other Biblical uses of the word ( there are almost 300 ocurences), you will see that it's almost impossible to hold this definition.
A few examples:
Matthew 12:34
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak (laleo) good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
This verse in particular seems to communicate the opposite of the PFAL definition. If it's from the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks, it's not by inspiration, but by thought patterns.
Matthew 12:46 is also interesting.
While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak (laleo) with him.
Did Mary and his brothers want to have a "believers' meeting"? Doubtful. What about Matthew 26:13?
Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told (laleo) for a memorial of her.
Doesn't the idea of generations of people passing on a story by memory directly contradict the idea of using the voice without reference to the words spoken? Even more interestingly, this word is also used of the speech of devils.
Luke 4:41
And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak (laleo): for they knew that he was Christ.
And finally, I think we should all get off Peter's back about the denial of Christ. It was obviously prophecy or inspired utterance. We know this because this unique word laleo is used. ;-)
Luke 22:60
And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake (laleo), the cock crew.
The vast majority of the uses of this word are in the context of preaching or witnessing. It's even used in a backward sense because when Jesus and the apostles were falsely accused of speaking blasphemies, laleo is the word used. So it may perhaps be most narrowly defined as to proclaim or speak boldly, as opposed to the word "say" or "said" which is usually translated from the word lego. Lego, which is used over 1,300 times, seems to have a more casual meaning than laleo. But the PFAL definition that implies inspired utterance and the bypassing of conscious thought is not derived from Biblical research.
...and while we're on the subject of Dr. Weirwille's lame lexicon, I think we should include his erroneous definitions of allos and heteros, which he used to prop up his four crucified teaching. The four crucified teaching itself, lifted entirely from Bullinger's appendix (that had to hurt), is an error of interpretation.
But I think VP's narrow definitions of allos and heteros are definitely actual errors. If you want, I'll copy and paste a more detailed explanation of the particulars for the consideration of this esteemed body.
I still need to hear from all of you on the issue of how to give you credit for your contributions. Names? Handles? Both? Let me know (privately, if you don't mind).
TW: Thanks. "The" faith. That helps. I have no doubt that it's an actual error. I just couldn't figure out how to express it.
Steve: Is it just me, or did you make a rock-solid case for the analysis of II Timothy 3:16 as an error of interpretation? Let me be clear that I totally agree with you, it's an error. The only quibble is what kind? Thoughts, anyone?
Jerry: Laleo is a good one. Yes, it needs to be added. As for heteros and allos: I need examples that show exactly how and why the definitions provided were wrong. I remember you did have them. Please post.
Zix: You are correct. I felt confident with the apistia v. apatheia, but not faith v. believing.
It will be some time before I actually post the additions. A couple of days. A week. I don't know.
I will say that I had no intention of posting so much in the past month (something like 400 times, maybe more). I absolutely need to slow down. I'm detecting a yellow light that's sort of ready to go red at a moment's notice, knowhatImean, Vern?
Hello, my name is Rafael, and I'm a greasespotaholic.
Thanks and nice job so far. May I make a few suggestions that might improve things?
(1) -- I think it might look better in column format, with 2 columns, like a table. The first column heading would read "What PFAL says" (or what other of VPW's writings say) then list in the rows in that column what PFAL says and document the exact page. The second column heading would be "what the bible says" or "other research" or something like that. Then in those cells you would put your responses. Finally for the "discussion" part you may want to use endnotes.
I don't know how difficult this is to set up, I'm not knowledgeable how to do this on a webpage, but I do think it would look and feel more professional. But if it's too much of a hassle, then perhaps if you use your existing format and just put in parenthesis the actual page from where you are quoting VPW from, that would suffice.
(2) -- Error 9 -- I think this is a big big deal and much further discussion is needed. If its true that the gospels are also written TO us, just as much as the epistles, then I think apparent contradictions between the two need to be explained.
(3) -- Error 21 -- Just a small note here, but I think The Thirteenth Tribe is still very much contoversial and not definitively proven one way or the other. I've spoken to a few knowledgeable Jews about this book and there is controversy on all sides. But be that as it may, it says on the front cover that "evidence indicates that the Khazars themselves migrated to Poland and formed the cradle of Western Jewry...". So Koestler is contending that the large part of Western Jews of today (Ashkenazim) come from Khazars, they are Ashkenazim; not eastern, Sephardim Jews, which you correctly point out. But Koestler says that "Western" Jews form this group; while you say he is saying "Eastern" Jews that he doesn't say...
Well that's it for now..I hope this helps in some small way.
quote: (2) -- Error 9 -- I think this is a big big deal and much further discussion is needed. If its true that the gospels are also written TO us, just as much as the epistles, then I think apparent contradictions between the two need to be explained.
Was it Steve Lortz who pointed out how Wierwille clearly states that Rom 9,10,11 are a parenthetical statement? But he makes one hell of a case that they are absolutely not. I bring this up because the part several parts:
quote:
Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Act 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
So is this to say that Acts is not written to us either? Even if you held this position you would have to admit it is the one and same theophilis -- beloved of god I believe is the interpretation. VPW taught that acts was a transtion book from the Old to New testaments. I would like to put forward the idea that the Gospels are the transition books that most fundamentally teach HOW to get your mind from the letter of the law to the intent / spirit behind the law - namely walking in the love of God. We know that Jesus Christ came to fufill the law It seems pleroo does not just indicate to just keep those laws because the example of JC was so much more than just keeping but fulfilling to the utermost or pushing something to the limits of its capacity.
quote:
Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
And also to reiterate the teaching that was done before:
quote:
Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] Baal.
Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee.
Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again
Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Eph 3:9 And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things
Eph 3:11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
It just does not hold up to scrutiny that we are some seperate body from the believers than Israel or that what God gave us is not the eternal purpose which he had in christ. Of course it wasn't fully revealed because Paul had to receive revelation to understand it. But it says we are grafted onto the same tree. Paul makes the case that the Israel of God is them that believe -- like the father of faith Abraham. We know that Paul cannot be referring to rejecting his gospel because ISRAEL was rejecting Jesus Christ's message even as he was giving it.
There are things in the gospels I don't understand like Oldiesman was saying as well. Perhaps they are yet future but that doesn't mean the book isn't written for "our learning" which is doctrine (I think Goey pointed that out).
And who did Jeses come for??? Was it all the sheep of Israel or the "lost" sheep? And the words he spoke -- were they for all of Israel or him that had ears to hear?
quote: Deu 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
Eze 12:2 Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they [are] a rebellious house.
Luk 8:8 And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar 12:10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
Luk 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head
Does it not seem like a continuation starting with Jesus Christ? Just a little more fuel for the fire of number 9 I guess.
[This message was edited by troubledwine on January 31, 2003 at 6:21.]
The work you have done here, coupled with the work Jerry Barrax did on his "PFAL Review" thread, reminds me of news photos of the German people rising up to tear down the Berlin wall, piece by piece, dancing and celebrating on top of the wreckage.
It makes me want to paint half my face blue, climb up on top of the PFAL rubble, turn my backside toward New Knoxville, bend over, flip my kilt up, and bellow "FREEEDOMMMM!!!!!"
OLDIES: I don't know hot to set it up in columns. I'm not really that good on the Web, and I just used MS Word to create that document. As I learn more, I'll change the format. You're right about specific, page by page citations.
With regard to error #9 (the gospels are addressed to us)... Wierwille's specific statement is, "To whom are the gospels addressed? To a period before or after Pentecost?" Well, since they were ALL written after Pentecost, then we know the answer to that question. They are addressed to a period after Pentecost. If they were addressed to a period BEFORE Pentecost, then it was a big waste waiting until AFTER Pentecost to write them.
What Wierwille WANTED to say was, "ABOUT whom are the gospels written?" They were written ABOUT a period before Pentecost. Now, by HIS VERY OWN STANDARD, one preposition out of place diqualifies a document as "THE Word of God." Well, I found a preposition out of place.
The introduction to Luke should make it absolutely clear that, at the very least, THAT gospel was written TO believers.
I don't want to get into a dispensational debate: it's not my forte. But if you ARE a dispensationalist, there's no problem with this observation. You can put your mind at ease by recognizing that the gospels are ABOUT a time before Pentecost. Everything falls back into the dispensational framework after that.
But I do encourage you to dig deeper into the so-called contradictions between the gospels and the epistles. It could be quite the education, and will enhance your appreciation of the Lord's key dissertation: the Sermon on the Mount.
As or the "Jew and Judean" discussion, I've actually read enough to consider this an actual error. I read an old piece of literature that... OW! Sorry. Wierwille misrepresented Koestler, who himself was wrong about key findings. So Wierwille only compounded the error.
The Khazars did convert to Judaism, but most Jews are not of Khazar background. Wierwille says that the majority of modern Jews are predominantly descendants of the Khazars. That statement is simply false.
I should also say that you, Oldies, misinterpreted what I said about Koestler. Compare your critique to what I wrote and I think you’ll see what I mean.
WORDWOLF: Wierwille specifically writes that there’s no record of angels singing in Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed. I don’t think he ever wrote that angels “don’t sing” or “can’t sing.” That’s a Way overreaction.
STEVE LORTZ: I have tremendous respect for the observations you’ve made, and I think you’ve presented very strong cases. But I also think you will agree that they are doctrinal errors. The “actual errors” we’re compiling are mostly appetizers. The errors you’re presenting are the main course: once we establish that Wierwille can be mistaken about “all without distinction,” we can say, well, what other mistakes did he make? And that’s where your observations come in.
Two errors that haven't got much play here and I know they are contentious are Jesus' last words and his identity.
On the cross, Jesus quoted the first part of Psalm 22:1, he was in pain, separated from God (from his perspective) because he was carrying all of the sins of the world. With that much sin, you too would feel separated.
No one seems to acknowledge that.
As for Jesus' identity,
John 1 was completely misread by vic.
It's obvious from the context of the book that John is speaking of Jesus. So to begin he tells us that Jesus was there before the beginning. He was with God and he was God.
John 17:5 and 24 talk of the relationship Jesus had with the Father.
John 8:58 tells of his existence before creation and his link to God by claiming the family name.
Colossians and Hebrew speak to his work in creation (hint: He did it)
Vic never had an origianl thought and when he did try something new, it fell flat.
Is it any wonder that only cults deny his deity?
The first step to recovery is admission of a problem. For those of you who still put stock in vic's words, this is your challenge.
We have seen how he plagiarized, invented theories and made outrageous claims that cannot be supported. and that doesn't include his personal life. Why would anyone give him the time of day?
Both those observations, I think, fall under "error of interpretation" (assuming you're correct).
Details of the the first one are on my list. (Errors 2 and 3).
I actually disagree with you, 100%, that Jesus felt separated from God because he was carrying the sins of the world. The Bible does not teach that. You're speculating.
A more obvious reason Jesus would cry out the first verse of Psalm 22 is... He wanted to call everyone's attention to Psalm 22! It's a messianic Psalm. With his dying words, Jesus is still announcing to the world that he is the Messiah.
Speculation? Maybe. But frankly, it makes more sense than your speculation. After all, considering your insistence that Jesus IS God, I do not see how you can suggest that he felt separated FROM God, no matter how much sin he was carrying.
That leads to your second observation, which you know full well is a doctrinal difference and beyond the scope of what we've tried to point out here in this thread. I have no interest in debating the Trinity. There's whole other threads for that, of which you are well aware.
However, if you want to refute specific statements Wierwille makes in Jesus Christ is not God, statements that are simply and factually false, that would be fair game.
If Wierwille plagiarized (and he most certainly did), then the content of his publications is still worthy of examination according to hte Biblical admonition to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. I question Wierwille's integrity as a researcher, author and preacher, because he plagiarized. But questioning the CONTENT of what he taught is a separate issue.
If I plagiarized your favorite novel, you would still love the novel, even though you'd criticize me for claiming it as my own.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 31, 2003 at 10:39.]
Regarding The Thirteenth Tribe: All Koestler really proved was that there was a tribe/nation called the Khazars who converted en masse to Judaism in the 8th (?) century. His documentary evidence is pretty firm on those points.
What he does not prove is that the Khazars are the sole descendents of the Askenazim. His theory that the Khazars migrated to eastern Europe to become the "cradle of eastern Jewry" is a supposition. Read his book and you'll see that he makes some logical and thought through projections of what could have happened, but doesn't prove it.
I wonder if you could ever prove something like that, absent clear and continuous written recors.
One thing is clear: there are references to Jews being in all parts of the former Roman empire continuously from biblical times to modern times. As a group, Jews tended to be urban dwellers, and as the most visible non-Christians, tended to stand out as a community.
Another thing, regarding language. Although Yiddish became the lingua franca of eastern european Jews, most educated Jews retained a facility in Hebrew, in order to read the scriptures. There is absolutely no evidence of any aspects of a Khazar language surviving into modern times.
It's also hard to see how Wierwille could have made some of the statements that he did if he had actually read Koestler. Did he just skim the book? Did he not understand what Koestler was saying? Or did he willfully misrepresent?
When I finally read The Thirteenth Tribe in the early 90's, I was amazed at how it did not fully support Wierwille's conclusions, even though Wierwille cited it as if it did.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
208
62
95
53
Popular Days
Jan 3
56
Jan 28
53
Jan 17
52
Jan 27
46
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 208 posts
Jbarrax 62 posts
Zixar 95 posts
Mike 53 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2003
56 posts
Jan 28 2003
53 posts
Jan 17 2003
52 posts
Jan 27 2003
46 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Clear as the difference between all with a distinction and all without distinction. See, to those unaware of the circumstances that brought about this thread, I look like I'm nitpicking to prove Wier
Raf
I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether
Larry P2
And let's not forget the one about "All the women in the Kingdom belong to the King." Which proves that he was a lecherous piece of sh!t communicating his desire for a steady stream of young, gullibl
Raf
You're right. Are the Dead Alive Now counts.
I've included the addition of the word "than," the changing of the word "abundantly," and the changing fo the order of the words.
"I am come that they might have life...more abundantly" becomes "Jesus came that we might have life more than abundant."
The rest of that page is filled with interpretational errors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I've got 25 errors listed so far, and I'm only up to page 8, and not done with Jerry Barrax's posts. Nine pages long so far (includes a one-page background sheet). This is going to be a long night.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Okay, I'm done.
I've got 27 that I'm comfortable with, I left out a bunch that I believe are errors, but I'm not sure they rise (or sink) to "actual error" status. At the very least, my argument for them doesn't do the trick for me.
The omitted "errors" are:
1. Wierwille's definition of faith vs. believing.
I just don't know how to phrase this one.
2. The image of God.
I think we can establish that Wierwille falls FAR SHORT of proving his case that the image of God is spirit. But can we actually say it's been refuted? I can't. That doesn't mean Wierwille is right. It just means that the error is interpretational.
3. Figures of speech
I still think I'm right about this one, but it's interpretational.
4. The profit in scripture.
While Steve made an excellent case for Wierwille's error, there's still one possible explanation that would validate Wierwille's theory that it should be doctrine, reproof and correction, summed up by the term "instruction in righteousness."
The explanation would be a figure of speech. Is there a figure of speech in which a list is provided, and the end of the list is the culmination of everything preceding? I don't have Bullinger's book, so I can't check. I'm sure some of you do. I'd love to hear an answer.
I'll post my list overnight and put a link on this thread (I'll also ask Pawtucket to place it as an article on the main page).
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
All those years in "reporter school" are finally paying off
;)-->
Oakspear (graduate of grocery school: where we learn to "handle the melons")
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
...but seriously Mr. Olmeda, thanks for starting this thread and double thanks for summarizing it all.
I'm looking forward to seeing "The List"
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Rafael:
Re: 1) I thought you had established this one, or are you differentiating between this and the apistia/apeitheia one?
4) It's probably some form of asyndeton if it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
troubledwine
Rafael,
Pertaining to number one Faith vs. Believing I hope you at least include before THE faith came portion we all discussed because that is the ROOT of his problem. He doesn't believe there was faith in the old testament so he has to make up an advanced theology to cover. but the definite article is in the text -- it is not faith in the abstract.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
symperasma: when what has been said is briefly summed up
epitrochasmos: running lightly over by way of summary
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
#4 - When I posted my second piece on this error, I said the level of detail was going to be mid-range. I left out the figure of speech analysis (as well as most of the Greek) to keep my post from being so long it would put people to sleep. I consider this to be high-end detail, so I'm going to have to charge twice my original price. Believe me, it's worth every cent!
On page 146 of FSUB Bullinger used II Timothy 3:16 as an example of "asyndeton", or "no ands" (You get the cigar, Zix). This is what Bullinger had to say:
"2 Tim. iii. 16,17.-'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
-for doctrine,
-for reproof,
-for correction,
-for instruction in righteousness:
that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.'
"Here we are hurried on, and not asked to stop and consider each of the four things for which all Scripture is profitable: but we are asked especially to dwell on the *object* of it: viz., thoroughly to furnish: the man of God for all the circumstances in which he may be placed."
Bullinger's analysis says that the figure throws emphasis on "thoroughly to furnish", not "instruction in righteousness".
Furthermore, he wrote, "...we are... not asked to stop and consider each of the four things for which all Scripture is profitable." This suggests to me that the use of asyndeton indicates we are not to try to tease apart the four things. This impression is further strengthened by the singularity of the subject, "all scripture".
Yet on page 1660 of the "Companion Bible" Bullinger's passion for structure appears to have overcome his passion for figures of speech. There he set forth the idea that Romans, Ephesians and Thessalonians are profitable for doctrine; Corinthians and Philippians are profitable for reproof; while Galatians and Colossians are profitable for correction.
In order to make this structure work, distributing 4 profits among 7 epistles, Bullinger first reduced the number of profits from 4 to 3 by writing that "Doctrine and Instruction" are the same thing. But that still doesn't work out evenly, 3 profits among 7 epistles. So in the entry for Thessalonians he wrote, "...No 'reproof'. No 'correction'."
Bullinger contradicted his figure of speech analysis with his structure analysis. I don't think Bullinger's structure analysis is justified by what's actually written in Paul's epistles to the churches. What good is this "key" for "resolving apparent contradictions"? In seven years involvement with TWI, the only time I ever heard this principle invoked was when a person justifying Marindale's sexual predation (this was back in '87, for all you late comers) said that the injunctions against fornication and adultery in Corinthians didn't count, because those books "weren't for doctrine"! Hah! Double hah!!
I think Wierwille wanted to plagiarize Bullinger's structure analysis because it looked so cool, and sooo *learn-ed*. But he couldn't use Bullinger's method of reducing 4 profits to 3, because Wierwille also taught in other places that different words mean absolutely different things. So he plagiarized and twisted Berry's translation as I demonstrated in one of my previous posts on this particular actual error.
That's also why I think Wierwille's error regarding II Timothy 3:16 was thought through, deliberate, and not inadvertant.
All for now.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
EXCELLENT post Tw. That's a terriffic examination of all the aspects of the "image of God". Such a thorough and well-researched presentation makes the PFAL definition seem ridiculously simplistic.
Hey, Raf, since you're compiling, I'd like to add a new one. I don't think we've discussed Dr. Weirwille's definition of laleo, the Greek word for "speak" used in the verses relating to speaking in tongues. VP defined it as "to use the voice without reference to the words spoken". The way it was presented in such a narrow context, it seemed to make perfect sense, as if it was a special version of the word "speak" used only of inspired utterances.
But when you look at the other Biblical uses of the word ( there are almost 300 ocurences), you will see that it's almost impossible to hold this definition.
A few examples:
Matthew 12:34
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak (laleo) good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
This verse in particular seems to communicate the opposite of the PFAL definition. If it's from the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks, it's not by inspiration, but by thought patterns.
Matthew 12:46 is also interesting.
While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak (laleo) with him.
Did Mary and his brothers want to have a "believers' meeting"? Doubtful. What about Matthew 26:13?
Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told (laleo) for a memorial of her.
Doesn't the idea of generations of people passing on a story by memory directly contradict the idea of using the voice without reference to the words spoken? Even more interestingly, this word is also used of the speech of devils.
Luke 4:41
And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak (laleo): for they knew that he was Christ.
And finally, I think we should all get off Peter's back about the denial of Christ. It was obviously prophecy or inspired utterance. We know this because this unique word laleo is used. ;-)
Luke 22:60
And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake (laleo), the cock crew.
The vast majority of the uses of this word are in the context of preaching or witnessing. It's even used in a backward sense because when Jesus and the apostles were falsely accused of speaking blasphemies, laleo is the word used. So it may perhaps be most narrowly defined as to proclaim or speak boldly, as opposed to the word "say" or "said" which is usually translated from the word lego. Lego, which is used over 1,300 times, seems to have a more casual meaning than laleo. But the PFAL definition that implies inspired utterance and the bypassing of conscious thought is not derived from Biblical research.
I'd say this is actual error number....19?
Peace
JerryB
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
...and while we're on the subject of Dr. Weirwille's lame lexicon, I think we should include his erroneous definitions of allos and heteros, which he used to prop up his four crucified teaching. The four crucified teaching itself, lifted entirely from Bullinger's appendix (that had to hurt), is an error of interpretation.
But I think VP's narrow definitions of allos and heteros are definitely actual errors. If you want, I'll copy and paste a more detailed explanation of the particulars for the consideration of this esteemed body.
Peace.
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You guys are so cool.
I still need to hear from all of you on the issue of how to give you credit for your contributions. Names? Handles? Both? Let me know (privately, if you don't mind).
TW: Thanks. "The" faith. That helps. I have no doubt that it's an actual error. I just couldn't figure out how to express it.
Steve: Is it just me, or did you make a rock-solid case for the analysis of II Timothy 3:16 as an error of interpretation? Let me be clear that I totally agree with you, it's an error. The only quibble is what kind? Thoughts, anyone?
Jerry: Laleo is a good one. Yes, it needs to be added. As for heteros and allos: I need examples that show exactly how and why the definitions provided were wrong. I remember you did have them. Please post.
Zix: You are correct. I felt confident with the apistia v. apatheia, but not faith v. believing.
It will be some time before I actually post the additions. A couple of days. A week. I don't know.
I will say that I had no intention of posting so much in the past month (something like 400 times, maybe more). I absolutely need to slow down. I'm detecting a yellow light that's sort of ready to go red at a moment's notice, knowhatImean, Vern?
Hello, my name is Rafael, and I'm a greasespotaholic.
Myyyy preciousssss.
Oh....
Here's the list!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Very cool, very cool.
Also cool that you acknowledged the "official minority voice" mi hermano Miguelito.
Seeing all of these errors in one place will help some folks make a decision...I can only hope
:)-->
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Rafael,
Thanks and nice job so far. May I make a few suggestions that might improve things?
(1) -- I think it might look better in column format, with 2 columns, like a table. The first column heading would read "What PFAL says" (or what other of VPW's writings say) then list in the rows in that column what PFAL says and document the exact page. The second column heading would be "what the bible says" or "other research" or something like that. Then in those cells you would put your responses. Finally for the "discussion" part you may want to use endnotes.
I don't know how difficult this is to set up, I'm not knowledgeable how to do this on a webpage, but I do think it would look and feel more professional. But if it's too much of a hassle, then perhaps if you use your existing format and just put in parenthesis the actual page from where you are quoting VPW from, that would suffice.
(2) -- Error 9 -- I think this is a big big deal and much further discussion is needed. If its true that the gospels are also written TO us, just as much as the epistles, then I think apparent contradictions between the two need to be explained.
(3) -- Error 21 -- Just a small note here, but I think The Thirteenth Tribe is still very much contoversial and not definitively proven one way or the other. I've spoken to a few knowledgeable Jews about this book and there is controversy on all sides. But be that as it may, it says on the front cover that "evidence indicates that the Khazars themselves migrated to Poland and formed the cradle of Western Jewry...". So Koestler is contending that the large part of Western Jews of today (Ashkenazim) come from Khazars, they are Ashkenazim; not eastern, Sephardim Jews, which you correctly point out. But Koestler says that "Western" Jews form this group; while you say he is saying "Eastern" Jews that he doesn't say...
Well that's it for now..I hope this helps in some small way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Man!
It took me most of the week to finally catch
up to the end of the thread!
-I don't remember vpw's comment about angels not
singing as appearing in any of the books.
(Doesn't mean it's NOT there-I just didn't note
it.) He DID say it a number of times. Somewhere
I have a tape where he mentioned it, during the
songs. He said, of why he has people sing
"..angels do NOT sing. SAINTS sing. That's why
I have you people sing-because none of you are
angels. *pause for obligatory audience laugh*
Even you ladies.*pause form obligatory
audience laugh*
Unless someone's willing to pay me a lot of
money, I'm not going to sit thru all the tapes
to find it.
----
Rafael, I haven't looked at the list yet. If I
made the list, please use my screen-name.
-----
You did include the "droit de signeur", right?
("every woman in the kingdom belonged to the
king") If memory serves, one of the ladies
originally identified it by name, on its own
thread. (I think she shud b asked about a
mention, if you do include it.)
------
Thanks for the reminder you left me a few pages
back. I'll doublecheck it, & post a reply as
soon as I can (hopefully, 24 hours or less.)
------
Please warn us when you're going to post
something that funny. My laugh produced a
doppler echo back to me.
:)-->
Maybe you can post a picture of that river in
Egypt.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
troubledwine
I agree with what Oldiesman said
Was it Steve Lortz who pointed out how Wierwille clearly states that Rom 9,10,11 are a parenthetical statement? But he makes one hell of a case that they are absolutely not. I bring this up because the part several parts:
So is this to say that Acts is not written to us either? Even if you held this position you would have to admit it is the one and same theophilis -- beloved of god I believe is the interpretation. VPW taught that acts was a transtion book from the Old to New testaments. I would like to put forward the idea that the Gospels are the transition books that most fundamentally teach HOW to get your mind from the letter of the law to the intent / spirit behind the law - namely walking in the love of God. We know that Jesus Christ came to fufill the law It seems pleroo does not just indicate to just keep those laws because the example of JC was so much more than just keeping but fulfilling to the utermost or pushing something to the limits of its capacity.
And also to reiterate the teaching that was done before:
It just does not hold up to scrutiny that we are some seperate body from the believers than Israel or that what God gave us is not the eternal purpose which he had in christ. Of course it wasn't fully revealed because Paul had to receive revelation to understand it. But it says we are grafted onto the same tree. Paul makes the case that the Israel of God is them that believe -- like the father of faith Abraham. We know that Paul cannot be referring to rejecting his gospel because ISRAEL was rejecting Jesus Christ's message even as he was giving it.
There are things in the gospels I don't understand like Oldiesman was saying as well. Perhaps they are yet future but that doesn't mean the book isn't written for "our learning" which is doctrine (I think Goey pointed that out).
And who did Jeses come for??? Was it all the sheep of Israel or the "lost" sheep? And the words he spoke -- were they for all of Israel or him that had ears to hear?
And who continues to hear him today? We know we get the spirit by the "hearing of faith".
And who does it say we are builded on??
Does it not seem like a continuation starting with Jesus Christ? Just a little more fuel for the fire of number 9 I guess.
[This message was edited by troubledwine on January 31, 2003 at 6:21.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Congratulations, Rafael!
The work you have done here, coupled with the work Jerry Barrax did on his "PFAL Review" thread, reminds me of news photos of the German people rising up to tear down the Berlin wall, piece by piece, dancing and celebrating on top of the wreckage.
It makes me want to paint half my face blue, climb up on top of the PFAL rubble, turn my backside toward New Knoxville, bend over, flip my kilt up, and bellow "FREEEDOMMMM!!!!!"
That's MY gut feeling!
Love,
Steve
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Rafael: Nice! You can credit me however you like.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This post is longer than intended, but so what.
OLDIES: I don't know hot to set it up in columns. I'm not really that good on the Web, and I just used MS Word to create that document. As I learn more, I'll change the format. You're right about specific, page by page citations.
With regard to error #9 (the gospels are addressed to us)... Wierwille's specific statement is, "To whom are the gospels addressed? To a period before or after Pentecost?" Well, since they were ALL written after Pentecost, then we know the answer to that question. They are addressed to a period after Pentecost. If they were addressed to a period BEFORE Pentecost, then it was a big waste waiting until AFTER Pentecost to write them.
What Wierwille WANTED to say was, "ABOUT whom are the gospels written?" They were written ABOUT a period before Pentecost. Now, by HIS VERY OWN STANDARD, one preposition out of place diqualifies a document as "THE Word of God." Well, I found a preposition out of place.
The introduction to Luke should make it absolutely clear that, at the very least, THAT gospel was written TO believers.
I don't want to get into a dispensational debate: it's not my forte. But if you ARE a dispensationalist, there's no problem with this observation. You can put your mind at ease by recognizing that the gospels are ABOUT a time before Pentecost. Everything falls back into the dispensational framework after that.
But I do encourage you to dig deeper into the so-called contradictions between the gospels and the epistles. It could be quite the education, and will enhance your appreciation of the Lord's key dissertation: the Sermon on the Mount.
As or the "Jew and Judean" discussion, I've actually read enough to consider this an actual error. I read an old piece of literature that... OW! Sorry. Wierwille misrepresented Koestler, who himself was wrong about key findings. So Wierwille only compounded the error.
The Khazars did convert to Judaism, but most Jews are not of Khazar background. Wierwille says that the majority of modern Jews are predominantly descendants of the Khazars. That statement is simply false.
I should also say that you, Oldies, misinterpreted what I said about Koestler. Compare your critique to what I wrote and I think you’ll see what I mean.
WORDWOLF: Wierwille specifically writes that there’s no record of angels singing in Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed. I don’t think he ever wrote that angels “don’t sing” or “can’t sing.” That’s a Way overreaction.
STEVE LORTZ: I have tremendous respect for the observations you’ve made, and I think you’ve presented very strong cases. But I also think you will agree that they are doctrinal errors. The “actual errors” we’re compiling are mostly appetizers. The errors you’re presenting are the main course: once we establish that Wierwille can be mistaken about “all without distinction,” we can say, well, what other mistakes did he make? And that’s where your observations come in.
But please, keep your clothes on.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Two errors that haven't got much play here and I know they are contentious are Jesus' last words and his identity.
On the cross, Jesus quoted the first part of Psalm 22:1, he was in pain, separated from God (from his perspective) because he was carrying all of the sins of the world. With that much sin, you too would feel separated.
No one seems to acknowledge that.
As for Jesus' identity,
John 1 was completely misread by vic.
It's obvious from the context of the book that John is speaking of Jesus. So to begin he tells us that Jesus was there before the beginning. He was with God and he was God.
John 17:5 and 24 talk of the relationship Jesus had with the Father.
John 8:58 tells of his existence before creation and his link to God by claiming the family name.
Colossians and Hebrew speak to his work in creation (hint: He did it)
Vic never had an origianl thought and when he did try something new, it fell flat.
Is it any wonder that only cults deny his deity?
The first step to recovery is admission of a problem. For those of you who still put stock in vic's words, this is your challenge.
We have seen how he plagiarized, invented theories and made outrageous claims that cannot be supported. and that doesn't include his personal life. Why would anyone give him the time of day?
Def59g
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Def,
Both those observations, I think, fall under "error of interpretation" (assuming you're correct).
Details of the the first one are on my list. (Errors 2 and 3).
I actually disagree with you, 100%, that Jesus felt separated from God because he was carrying the sins of the world. The Bible does not teach that. You're speculating.
A more obvious reason Jesus would cry out the first verse of Psalm 22 is... He wanted to call everyone's attention to Psalm 22! It's a messianic Psalm. With his dying words, Jesus is still announcing to the world that he is the Messiah.
Speculation? Maybe. But frankly, it makes more sense than your speculation. After all, considering your insistence that Jesus IS God, I do not see how you can suggest that he felt separated FROM God, no matter how much sin he was carrying.
That leads to your second observation, which you know full well is a doctrinal difference and beyond the scope of what we've tried to point out here in this thread. I have no interest in debating the Trinity. There's whole other threads for that, of which you are well aware.
However, if you want to refute specific statements Wierwille makes in Jesus Christ is not God, statements that are simply and factually false, that would be fair game.
If Wierwille plagiarized (and he most certainly did), then the content of his publications is still worthy of examination according to hte Biblical admonition to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. I question Wierwille's integrity as a researcher, author and preacher, because he plagiarized. But questioning the CONTENT of what he taught is a separate issue.
If I plagiarized your favorite novel, you would still love the novel, even though you'd criticize me for claiming it as my own.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 31, 2003 at 10:39.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Rafael: Don't know why I didn't catch this before, but you're using "apatheia" instead of "apeitheia". Two different things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Just a spelling error on my part.
"Apeitheia" means disobedience, but is translated "unbelief" in the KJV.
"apatheia" is not in the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Regarding The Thirteenth Tribe: All Koestler really proved was that there was a tribe/nation called the Khazars who converted en masse to Judaism in the 8th (?) century. His documentary evidence is pretty firm on those points.
What he does not prove is that the Khazars are the sole descendents of the Askenazim. His theory that the Khazars migrated to eastern Europe to become the "cradle of eastern Jewry" is a supposition. Read his book and you'll see that he makes some logical and thought through projections of what could have happened, but doesn't prove it.
I wonder if you could ever prove something like that, absent clear and continuous written recors.
One thing is clear: there are references to Jews being in all parts of the former Roman empire continuously from biblical times to modern times. As a group, Jews tended to be urban dwellers, and as the most visible non-Christians, tended to stand out as a community.
Another thing, regarding language. Although Yiddish became the lingua franca of eastern european Jews, most educated Jews retained a facility in Hebrew, in order to read the scriptures. There is absolutely no evidence of any aspects of a Khazar language surviving into modern times.
It's also hard to see how Wierwille could have made some of the statements that he did if he had actually read Koestler. Did he just skim the book? Did he not understand what Koestler was saying? Or did he willfully misrepresent?
When I finally read The Thirteenth Tribe in the early 90's, I was amazed at how it did not fully support Wierwille's conclusions, even though Wierwille cited it as if it did.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link 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.