I was just wondering about your thoughts. I like to read your responses to Mike and since we are both in the media, it keeps me sharp on some other aspects of the craft.
Wierwille's distinction between eternal and everlasting is interesting.
Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. --- Greek - ainion zoen = 'eternal life'
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Greek - ainion zoen = 'everlasting life'.
It is the same phrase, 'ainion zeon' used in both verses.
God is referred to as 'everlasting' in Romans 16:26: (King James Version)
Rom 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: --- Greek - aioniou Theou = everlasting God.
It beats the heck out of me why Wierwille attempts to makes a distinction between everlasting and eternal, placing God as eternal and our salvation as everlasting.
Eternal - American Heritage DIctionary
1. Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time. See Synonyms at infinite.
2. Continuing without interruption; perpetual.
3. Forever true or changeless: eternal truths.
4. Seemingly endless; interminable. See Synonyms at ageless. See Synonyms at continual.
5. Of or relating to spiritual communion with God, especially in the afterlife.
Everlasting - American Heritage Dictionary
adj.
1. Lasting forever; eternal.
2. Continuing indefinitely or for a long period of time.
3. Persisting too long; tedious: everlasting complaints.
n.
1. Everlasting God. Used with the.
2. Eternal duration; eternity.
3. Any of various plants, such as the strawflower or one of the genera Anaphalis or Gnaphalium, that retain form and color long after they are dry.
It seems that eternal and everlasting are synonymous. In any case the same base word - ainios used to desicribe both God and our salvation.
The NIV, NASB, NLT, and ASV all use 'eternal' instead of 'everlasting' in Romans 16:26. They all also use 'eternal' in both John 3:15 and 16.
Wierwille is splittiing hairs. I see no good reason to make a distinction, the Greek does not. God will continue forever as will our salvation. They are both eternal and everlasting in the sense of continuity. Wierwille says that God is eternal in the sense of having no beginning and no end which is true. But he says that our eternal life has a begining. Maybe, if you reckon it at the time of being born again. In other words, one moment condemned, the next saved for eternity.
One could argue though, that our salvation (eternal life) also had no beginning since it was in God's foreknowledge. Was there ever a time when God did not foreknow our salvation?
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Part of the difficulty Wierwille had in handling the word "aionios" comes from the truth that he bought into the erroneous doctrine of dispensations, or as he called them, "administrations".
The Greek word translated "dispensation" is "oikonomia", which means "stewardship". The Bible never uses it to refer to "a period of time". It uses "oikonomia" the way we might use "management".
The Bible does, however, distinguish two different periods of time, using the word "aion", which actually *does* mean "a period of time". The two Biblical ages are "this age", or as Paul calls it, "this present evil age", and "the age to come".
The adjective "aionios" simply means "of age" or "of the age" and often refers to "the age to come".
Biblically, I think the phrases translated "eternal life" and "life everlasting" most often refer to "resurrection life in the age to come".
I just bought and began reading Exegetical Fallacies by D. A. Carson. Under “Common Fallacies in Semantics,” “The root fallacy,” Carson attacks the notion that agapa? and agap? mean “some special kind of love.”
He does not endorse equating phile? and agapa? across their “entire range,” yet asserts “they enjoy substantial overlap.”
His argument is rather strong. He notes that John 3:35 uses agapa? for the Father’s loving of the Son, while John 5:20 uses phile?.
He also points out that agapa? is used in 2 Timothy 4:10 for Demas’ loving of the world, and that both agap? and agapa? appear in the Septuagint rendering of 2 Samuel 13:15.
[Edited to replace "denote" with "mean" in the first paragraph, because a later section in Carson's book got me to conclude my use of "denote" was uninformed.]
[This message was edited by Cynic on July 27, 2003 at 22:47.]
Here's another one Steve. I was reading I John yesterday and when I came across the verse that says, "it is the last time" I thought of you.
You've often mentioned that there's no aspect of times in the meaning of the word oikonomiaand I agree.
But there are quite a few verses in the NT epistles that mention that this is "the last time". If the only divisions of time in the Bible are this age and the age to come, what do you suppose I John refer to with the declaration that this is the last time?
Jerry - There are a number of different words in the New Testament that emphasize different aspects of time, such as "kairos", "genea", "hemara", "chronos", etc. I haven't made an exhaustive study of all of them.
"Oikonomia" NEVER indicates "a period of time" as used in the Bible. It always means "stewardship", or as we might say, "management".
"Aion" is the word that means "age" as "a period of time".
The phrase "last time" in I John is "eschatos hora". "Hora" is the word that we get "hour" from. Without having studied it more deeply at present, I'd guess the phrase means something like our "the eleventh hour".
Here's what I got out of this thread and this project:
1. There are numerous indisputable actual honest to God you have to have your head up somewhere it doesn't anatomically belong not to see it errors in the PFAL books. There are even more in the class.
2. Some of those errors are, in the grand scheme of things, minor and irrelevant.
3. Some of those errors are fairly important, as they have far-reaching implications.
4. Some of the errors fall into the category of "baseless speculation."
5. There is no debate as to whether there ARE errors in PFAL. The only debate is whether PFAL's errors are DISPUTABLE. I may dispute with Steve on dispensationalism, having (still!) not made up my mind on the issue. I may dispute with Def on whether or not Jesus is God. Many of us understand the flaws in "the law of believing," but it's not included on this list as an "actual error" because we can all agree that its status as an error is disputable.
But the TRUTH that there are errors in PFAL is indisputable. It is the word of man, and by its own definition and criteria, NOT the Word of God.
Here's Rafael's list, just so folks won't have to hop back over to Page 1:
quote:The purpose of this thread is to document actual errors in PFAL, primarily the book, but also the class. Why rehash this stuff? Simple: for those who believe that PFAL is “God-breathed,” it is necessary to point out that God cannot get things wrong, especially when it comes to matters of Biblical interpretation. So, let’s look at some documentable errors in PFAL.
Number 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.
In truth, David is called “a man after God’s own heart” in I Samuel, long before he is king, long before he met Bathsheba.
Number 2
In PFAL, Wierwille writes that there is no word “lama” in the Aramaic.
In truth, there IS such a word in Palestinian Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke. It means “why?”
Number 3
In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the word “lama” should probably be replaced with “lmna,” “for this purpose,” which is never used in a question.
In truth, “lmna” can be used in a question, something Wierwille acknowledged near the end of his life, and which is acknowledged in TWI’s very own Aramaic Interlinear.
Number 4
In PFAL, Wierwille notes the distinction between “thoroughly” and “throughly.”
In truth, the latter is an archaic form of the former. They mean precisely the same thing (Wierwille failed to follow his own principle of interpreting words according to their Biblical usage).
Number 5
In PFAL, Wierwille writes of the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven.
In truth, the Bible uses these terms interchangeably. There is no difference whatsoever in their usage. Jesus uses them interchangeably. (I debated whether this is a difference in interpretation or a difference in fact. My conclusion is that this is a difference in fact, as it is plain to anyone who cares to look up the parallel usages of the two terms).
Number 6
In PFAL, Wierwille says “apistia” is the kind of unbelief held by people who don’t know enough to believe, while “apatheia” is the kind of unbelief held by people who’ve heard enough, but don’t care.
In truth, the word “apistia” is used of the disciples after the resurrection (Mark 16:14) and of Israel (Romans 3: 1-3). Neither can be said to have not heard enough to believe.
Number 7
In PFAL, Wierwille defines “apostle” as one who brings new light to his generation. It may be old light, but it is new to the generation that hears it.
In truth, “apostle” means “sent one.” It does not carry the definition Wierwille applies to it (indeed, such a definition leads one to wonder how the term could apply to more than one person in any given generation, while we KNOW that there were 12 during Jesus’ lifetime, and 13 if we include Jesus himself – the Apostle and High Priest of our confession. Or is it profession? Whatever).
Number 8
In PFAL Wierwille writes that “all without distinction” means anyone within a specific category.
In truth, basic grammar tells us that all in a certain category means “all WITH a distinction,” the distinction being membership in that category. This error is so fundamentally blatant that Wierwille himself corrected it in Jesus Christ is Not God.
Number 9
In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the gospels are written to Israel and/or to the church of the gospels.
In truth, the gospels are all written after the resurrection, and they are written to practicing Christians. There was nothing written specifically TO the church of the gospels.
Number 10
In PFAL, Wierwille states that in Luke 2, Jesus was taken to the temple for bar-mitzvah at age 12 instead of 13 because he was considered illegitimate.
In truth, the passage in Luke 2 has nothing whatsoever to do with bar-mitzvah. The passage states rather clearly that they were celebrating Passover, not Jesus’ bar-mitzvah.
In addition, there is no such custom in Judaism (treating illegitimate children differently for the purpose of bar-mitzvah). Wierwille cites “an old piece of literature” as his source for this bizarre claim.
Any one of these FACTS should be sufficient to prove that PFAL is not the perfect utterance of God Almighty, but (at best) the flawed work of a flawed man trying to communicate a system for reading and understanding the Bible.
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the word of God..."
6er... Raffy... donchaknow? the bible must be wrong and fpal is right... it's the more correct word from or for God... He (God) realized there were mistakes in the Bible and he had vp correct them for him (for the olg)
Well, if PFAL is the Word of God, then it has to have a mathematical exactness, a scientific precision, and fit like a hand in a glove. It doesn't, so either it was wrong when it said that, and therefore not the perfect Word of God, or it was right when it said that, disqualifying itself from being the Word of God.
Wait... Where's the option that lets it really be the Word of God again?
Raf? You got it somewhere? I can't find it...
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the word of God..."
The other option is that it really DOES have mathematical exactness and scientific precision: the problem is we're all unfit researchers so driven by our contempt for Wierwille that we can't see it.
So when Wierwille gives the EXACT SAME definition for "all without distinction" as he does for "all WITH distinction," we're not supposed to notice.
When Wierwille writes that God had no pronounceable name, we're supposed to ignore the fact that many of the patriarchs before Moses used the name "Yahweh" when referring to God.
Excy, of course, is wrong. Because in I Wierwille 23:21, it says there are no coincidences, therefore, she did not just stumble in here. She was meant to be here.
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
Oakspear
Rafael:
I don't own any of Wierwille's books, so I'm going strictly by memory, as I did with previous contributions.
I thought I remembered that from PFAL...if it's not in the book, please carry on
:D-->
Oakspear
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Thanks Raf.
I was just wondering about your thoughts. I like to read your responses to Mike and since we are both in the media, it keeps me sharp on some other aspects of the craft.
God Bless
Deff
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Rafael,
Wierwille's distinction between eternal and everlasting is interesting.
Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. --- Greek - ainion zoen = 'eternal life'
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Greek - ainion zoen = 'everlasting life'.
It is the same phrase, 'ainion zeon' used in both verses.
God is referred to as 'everlasting' in Romans 16:26: (King James Version)
Rom 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: --- Greek - aioniou Theou = everlasting God.
It beats the heck out of me why Wierwille attempts to makes a distinction between everlasting and eternal, placing God as eternal and our salvation as everlasting.
Eternal - American Heritage DIctionary
1. Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time. See Synonyms at infinite.
2. Continuing without interruption; perpetual.
3. Forever true or changeless: eternal truths.
4. Seemingly endless; interminable. See Synonyms at ageless. See Synonyms at continual.
5. Of or relating to spiritual communion with God, especially in the afterlife.
Everlasting - American Heritage Dictionary
adj.
1. Lasting forever; eternal.
2. Continuing indefinitely or for a long period of time.
3. Persisting too long; tedious: everlasting complaints.
n.
1. Everlasting God. Used with the.
2. Eternal duration; eternity.
3. Any of various plants, such as the strawflower or one of the genera Anaphalis or Gnaphalium, that retain form and color long after they are dry.
It seems that eternal and everlasting are synonymous. In any case the same base word - ainios used to desicribe both God and our salvation.
The NIV, NASB, NLT, and ASV all use 'eternal' instead of 'everlasting' in Romans 16:26. They all also use 'eternal' in both John 3:15 and 16.
Wierwille is splittiing hairs. I see no good reason to make a distinction, the Greek does not. God will continue forever as will our salvation. They are both eternal and everlasting in the sense of continuity. Wierwille says that God is eternal in the sense of having no beginning and no end which is true. But he says that our eternal life has a begining. Maybe, if you reckon it at the time of being born again. In other words, one moment condemned, the next saved for eternity.
One could argue though, that our salvation (eternal life) also had no beginning since it was in God's foreknowledge. Was there ever a time when God did not foreknow our salvation?
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Part of the difficulty Wierwille had in handling the word "aionios" comes from the truth that he bought into the erroneous doctrine of dispensations, or as he called them, "administrations".
The Greek word translated "dispensation" is "oikonomia", which means "stewardship". The Bible never uses it to refer to "a period of time". It uses "oikonomia" the way we might use "management".
The Bible does, however, distinguish two different periods of time, using the word "aion", which actually *does* mean "a period of time". The two Biblical ages are "this age", or as Paul calls it, "this present evil age", and "the age to come".
The adjective "aionios" simply means "of age" or "of the age" and often refers to "the age to come".
Biblically, I think the phrases translated "eternal life" and "life everlasting" most often refer to "resurrection life in the age to come".
Love,
Steve
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
What do you think about the phrase "to the ages of the
ages"? That's how I read some of the Greek when
passing thru...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
I just bought and began reading Exegetical Fallacies by D. A. Carson. Under “Common Fallacies in Semantics,” “The root fallacy,” Carson attacks the notion that agapa? and agap? mean “some special kind of love.”
He does not endorse equating phile? and agapa? across their “entire range,” yet asserts “they enjoy substantial overlap.”
His argument is rather strong. He notes that John 3:35 uses agapa? for the Father’s loving of the Son, while John 5:20 uses phile?.
He also points out that agapa? is used in 2 Timothy 4:10 for Demas’ loving of the world, and that both agap? and agapa? appear in the Septuagint rendering of 2 Samuel 13:15.
[Edited to replace "denote" with "mean" in the first paragraph, because a later section in Carson's book got me to conclude my use of "denote" was uninformed.]
[This message was edited by Cynic on July 27, 2003 at 22:47.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
WordWolf - Interesting question. I'll have to take some time to give it the consideration it deserves.
Cynic - Thanks for the info about Carson's book.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Here's another one Steve. I was reading I John yesterday and when I came across the verse that says, "it is the last time" I thought of you.
You've often mentioned that there's no aspect of times in the meaning of the word oikonomiaand I agree.
But there are quite a few verses in the NT epistles that mention that this is "the last time". If the only divisions of time in the Bible are this age and the age to come, what do you suppose I John refer to with the declaration that this is the last time?
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Jerry - I'll look into it. Thanks!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Jerry - There are a number of different words in the New Testament that emphasize different aspects of time, such as "kairos", "genea", "hemara", "chronos", etc. I haven't made an exhaustive study of all of them.
"Oikonomia" NEVER indicates "a period of time" as used in the Bible. It always means "stewardship", or as we might say, "management".
"Aion" is the word that means "age" as "a period of time".
The phrase "last time" in I John is "eschatos hora". "Hora" is the word that we get "hour" from. Without having studied it more deeply at present, I'd guess the phrase means something like our "the eleventh hour".
I hope this helps. (I also *hope* I'm right! :-)
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Thanks Steve.
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Back to the top with this one...
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Here's what I got out of this thread and this project:
1. There are numerous indisputable actual honest to God you have to have your head up somewhere it doesn't anatomically belong not to see it errors in the PFAL books. There are even more in the class.
2. Some of those errors are, in the grand scheme of things, minor and irrelevant.
3. Some of those errors are fairly important, as they have far-reaching implications.
4. Some of the errors fall into the category of "baseless speculation."
5. There is no debate as to whether there ARE errors in PFAL. The only debate is whether PFAL's errors are DISPUTABLE. I may dispute with Steve on dispensationalism, having (still!) not made up my mind on the issue. I may dispute with Def on whether or not Jesus is God. Many of us understand the flaws in "the law of believing," but it's not included on this list as an "actual error" because we can all agree that its status as an error is disputable.
But the TRUTH that there are errors in PFAL is indisputable. It is the word of man, and by its own definition and criteria, NOT the Word of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Here's Rafael's list, just so folks won't have to hop back over to Page 1:
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
I'm still waiting on the answers to these...
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The above list was the springboard for discussion, and was tweaked. A more complete list is right here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
6er... Raffy... donchaknow? the bible must be wrong and fpal is right... it's the more correct word from or for God... He (God) realized there were mistakes in the Bible and he had vp correct them for him (for the olg)
... big hitter, the lama...
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Well, if PFAL is the Word of God, then it has to have a mathematical exactness, a scientific precision, and fit like a hand in a glove. It doesn't, so either it was wrong when it said that, and therefore not the perfect Word of God, or it was right when it said that, disqualifying itself from being the Word of God.
Wait... Where's the option that lets it really be the Word of God again?
Raf? You got it somewhere? I can't find it...
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The other option is that it really DOES have mathematical exactness and scientific precision: the problem is we're all unfit researchers so driven by our contempt for Wierwille that we can't see it.
So when Wierwille gives the EXACT SAME definition for "all without distinction" as he does for "all WITH distinction," we're not supposed to notice.
When Wierwille writes that God had no pronounceable name, we're supposed to ignore the fact that many of the patriarchs before Moses used the name "Yahweh" when referring to God.
The evidence is wrong. Wierwille is right.
Get your priorities straight, people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
HALLELUJAH!!! I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!!! I AM CONVERTED, WHATEVER YA CALL IT!!! EVERYTHING RAF JUST WROTE MADE PERFECT SENSE--PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I'm tellin' ya... you guys are gonna be sorry... you got it all wrong...
... big hitter, the lama...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
oopsie stumbled in..... my ewwow..... sowwy
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Excy, of course, is wrong. Because in I Wierwille 23:21, it says there are no coincidences, therefore, she did not just stumble in here. She was meant to be here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Oh, please, please tell me it can't be so.
There CAN'T be errors in PLAF! er, I mean, PFAL!
Oh, the shame! Oh, the humanity!
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.