I'm happy to see that this subject, that of Dr stating something in PFAL that's not in the Biblical record, is getting some fair treatment here.
Whether he "makes up" something that can be easily and legitimately inferred from the record, or whether he got a revelation that "such and such" was actually so, even though not in the record, either way I'm happy to have been taught.
I often stand back and ask myself, "What am I being taught here?"
What I got taught here on these pages of PFAL was that it's sometimes a good risk to stand with God in spite of the opposition. I tried to apply this as TWI-2 was slowly forming in 1982, but found it to be a VERY difficult lesson to apply.
Maybe if some of us older grads had learned this lesson better and sooner, maybe if ENOUGH of us had really HEARD what Dr was teaching regarding Nathan, maybe then we would be now discussing the great courage and inspiration that our modern "Nathans" displayed in facing down the oppressive TWI-2 garbage. Instead, none of us really learned this lesson of Nathan... not yet.
I'm also happy to see that there is sometimes a willingness to "give the preacher a break" because it's very easy for critics of PFAL with the opposite attitude to really lose it in the zeal to tear apart illegitimately.
Adding emotions to people in the bible is no problem for me, and shouldn't be for anyone, as long as it does not change what the scripture clearly says.
I guess I should add - reasonable emotions.
Having emotions is not a sin :)-->
[This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 26, 2003 at 11:39.]
Hey! give a preacher a break. VP is making a legitimate surmise here. One can't really preach/teach the Bible dynamically unless one makes such educated guesses regarding the emotionally fall-out of situations.
I agree agree that is is a surmise, and also that preachers shoul be allowed that, but the legitimacy of VPW's surmise here is suspect.
In all of the accounts of Nathan there is not one shread of evidence that Nathan was afraid of David, or that David was inclined to chop off Nathan's head if he had come with a different story. VPW's surmise here is pure fiction and misses the point.
The problem is agrevated folks like Mike and a few others take a "surmise" like this which has no Biblical foundation and exalt it above what the scpriptures actually do say. Since the scriptures do not support VPW's wild specualtion, the speculation is declared to be "revelation" and therefore the "Word of God" - Pretty typical of glassy-eyed followers of cultic leaders who have rejected Bible in favor of the words and commandments of men.
Plots, I doubt that you have that problem in you church when you "surmise" something.
Plotinus makes a good point, namely that preachers frequently expand upon the written records in order to make the lesson fresh, or to make it stick in the congregation's minds a bit better.
After all, how many of us in TWI heard Ephesians quoted verbatim at us so many times it lost all impact?
Giving Wierwille a pass on this one because of "preacher syndrome" doesn't validate the error, it just recognizes the source of it.
I keep on saying this over and over, and will continue to do so: The only way for these error discussions to have any lasting value is to be as objective about them as humanly possible. If VPW said dechomai always meant one thing, and we can find examples where it means what he said lambano meant, then that's proof we can offer without emotion or sentiment. Or apeitheia/apistia. If he said something that turns out to be right, or at least defensible, we acknowledge it and move on. We don't argue just to prove everything he said was a lie, that only makes us look like idiots. We don't hang a man on inferences and implications, there is certainly enough rope in the facts themselves to do it without vengeance, disgust, or hate motivating us to see things that aren't there to make the job easier.
In other words, if Hitler killed 6,000,000 Jews, we still have to give him a full trial to find him guilty of killing number 6,000,001. He'd have gone to the gallows for just 1, but justice would not be served by piling charges on without indisputable evidence.
The difference between a trial and this endeavor is that in a trial, the lawyers are under no real compulsion to confuse their oratory with the truth. Whoever puts the better spin on the speech wins the trial. We can do better. Save the axe grinding for wood chopping, and stick to the facts.
Wierwille never said everything out of his mouth was straight from revelation. Treating every niggling thing he said as if he did is pedantry taken to ridiculous extremes. Any hint that our arguments are made from malice diminishes their impact to the audience, regardless of their truth.
Please forgive my clumsiness. I've forgotten how to do those nify quote brackets you guys use. :)-->
I haven't worked that any further, but I have discovered and error in it. I equated the Kingdom of God/Heaven with the New Heaven and New Earth That is, I equated being cast out of the Kingdom with the verse in Rev 22:15. That can't be, cause the Kingdom ends before the New Heaven & Earth according to I Cor. 15:24-28. So, I still believe that some Christians will not enjoy their eternity, but I don't think the "mist of darkness" fate mentioned in II Peter can be equated with Jesus' prophesies about some folks being cast out of his Kingdom.
And Rafael, the quote about "linguistic ledgerdemain (sp?) and a degree of intrepidity is from a Star Trek movie. The Undiscovered Country I think. They were trying to rescue Kirk and McCoy in a stolen/borrowed/rented Klingon ship and had to pass for Klingons in order to get past the sentries.
Someone mentioned Private Interpretation. I think this is one of the major factual errors, becauase it's the foundation of the whole "How the Bible interprets itself" doctrine.
Dr. Weirwille quoted II Peter 1:20 and then went on that memorable tirade about Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jumpup saying what they think a scripture means. His definition of "private interpretation" is a person expressing his thougts about the meaning of the Scripture.
The problem is, this is exactly the opposite of the context and usage of the phrase "private interpretation". The context is about how we GOT the truths we believe, not what we THINK about them. Peter is asserting that ... "...the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. "
Verse 20 means that the Word didn't come by Moses, John, Isaiah et al making it up. It wasn't contrived by a bunch of conmen, it was given by revelation.
Weirwille's twisting of the context and subsequent "I don't give a care what you think!" statement paves the way for him to tell us to turn off our minds, not to try to apply logic and reason to his teachings and to just let him "unfold it" for us. Anything less than humble acquiescence to his revealing of the mathemeatical exactness and scientific precision of God's mathcless word was Private Interpretation.
We got so thoroughly bamboozled by this error, that the twisted phrase was reduced to the acronym "PI".
Anyway, that's one that definitely should be added to the list I think.
VP asserted, based on no Scriptural evidence that I can recall, that God, being spirit, can only speak to what He is. He built this into the doctrine about Jesus briding "the chasm between the natural man and God" and then, into the battle of the sense vs revelation faith doctrine. All of this is based on the absurd and incorrect teaching that God Almight can't communicate with anyone who doesn't have holy spirit in or upon them.
According to VP's teaching, Adam and Eve lost the spirit immediately when they sinned. But Genesis 3:9-13 indicate that God spoke with both Adam and Eve right afterward. He also had a lengthy conversation with Cain right after he murdered Abel. Did Cain have holy spirit upon him? There's no Biblical evidence to support this.
There's also the problem of God communicating with un-annointed folks like King Abimelech (Gen 20:3)and Laban, Jacob's crooked father-in-law (Gen 31:24) by dreams.
Is a dream an avenue of the five senses? Nope. What your mind experiences in a dream is neither seen, nor heard, nor felt, nor smelt, nor tasted. It's beyond the five senses. So according to the Bible, God spoke to people who didn't have holy spirit in or on them by an avenue other than their five senses. He didn't "come into concretion". So VP's assertion that God can only speak to what He is, and the subsequent doctrine about a chasm between the natural man and God is bunk. BUNK I say!!
2)The Image of God is spirit
This relates to the erroneous definition of bara that someone else has already brought up. Dovetailed with Dr's tortured body-soul-spirit, formed-made-created masterpiece is the assertion that God created the spirit He put in Adam & Eve and that it was in this spirit category that He made man in his image. He quoted Genesis 1:27 which says, " So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
It all sounds pretty good unless you back up and read verse 26.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
According to VP, the word made [asah] refers specifically to the soul of man. Yet here in verse 26 it's used in conjunction with the word "image" which VP says is spirit. What so amazes me about this particular error regarding Genesis 1:27 is the fact that it's so blatantly wrong, because the contradicting evidence is right next to it! but I (we?) believed it for years.
Oh well. As I said, those two are biggies, imho, because they are the foundation for two or three other doctrines, which are also erroneous.
Jerry - It's good to have you back, even if it may not be for the marathon posting sessions you used to do. We've missed you. I hope everything else in your life is working out as well as it possibly could.
Thanks Steve. It's good to be back. Everything else in my life is actually going pretty well, too. :)-->
Thanks Zixar.
And by the way, not to belabor the point about Nathan, but I think the big reason I'd count this as an actual error is, in the PFAL book, Dr. Weirwille concluded that section with the statement, "Isn't that a trememdous verse of Scritpure when we examine it closely to see the Greatness of God's Word." (paragraph 3, page 88.)
I challenge Mike or anyone else to find an actual scriptural reference anywhere in Weirwille's 2 page exposition about David and Nathan. He never cited a Scripture in the first place; just started telling his version of the story. Then, after accusing David of wanting to behead the prophet, falsely stating that the King had a right to any woman in the country, and falsely stating that it was only afterthis correction that David was called a man after God's own heart (Which Raf has already pointed out is a contradiction of the Bible), he had te audacity to talk about having examined a verse of Scripture in its depth--when he never even cited any!
Had any mainstream preacher done this we would have ridiculed him mercilessly. Somehow, we let "The Man fo God" got away with it unchallenged.
Wow. Busy day. Nice posts all around. A few replies:
Vertical Limit: Ditto to what you said.
Goey: Ditto to what you said, too.
Zixar: A couple of things to reply to here. First, I agree with your premise. It's the purpose of this thread. Until the figures of speech discussion (in which I conceded in the very first post that yeah, maybe it is an interpretational error), we tried to hold to that. The figures of speech discussion came several hundred posts into this thread, so I figured the track record of "actual errors" covered our little diversion there. Technically, it was a derailing, but I'm not complaining. The figures of speech debate totally validates your point. My only contention is that an uninformed reader might think you're making your point as though I am unaware of it. To the contrary, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the criteria of actual errors and always have.
The other point you make, Zix, is, "Wierwille never said everything out of his mouth was straight from revelation. Treating every niggling thing he said as if he did is pedantry taken to ridiculous extremes."
You do realize, of course, that the purpose of this thread was, in part, to address exactly the extreme and unsound point of view you criticize as "pedantry taken to ridiculous extremes." In other words, we agree. Again.
Finally, you say: "Any hint that our arguments are made from malice diminishes their impact to the audience, regardless of their truth."
To which I reply, anyone who has read this far into the thread and come away with the impression that the argument we're making is purely malicious will have already reached that conclusion before reading anything. I respect their RIGHT to do so, but I do not respect their DECISION to do so, and will not bend over backwards to assure them of my integrity (since NOTHING I do or say will have that effect).
JERRY!!!!!!
Jerry rocks. God bless you, man.
Okay, let's address the errors Jerry has proposed:
1. Wierwille's definition of "private interpretation."
First, I totally agree that II Peter 1:20 is discussing the ORIGIN, not the MEANING of scripture. I see no room for debate about this. I hesitated to call it an "actual error" because I thought it might fall under "error of interpretation."
Would anyone like to discuss this one? Have at it.
2. God can only speak to that which He is.
What can I say? You nailed it. Actual error. Any debate?
3. The image of God is spirit.
Ditto. Discussion?
4. Regarding Nathan: I actually changed my mind on this subject while writing this post, so forgive me if I seem to contradict myself in the paragraphs which follow. Wierwille begins with an illustration and I give him license to have some fun with his source material as much as I would any other preacher (I loved the way Ralph Dubofsky expressed Jesus' thoughts after the disciples questioned whether it was him walking on the water. According to Dubofsky, Jesus wanted to reply, "YOU IDIOTS! WHO ELSE WOULD BE OUT HERE?")
The only straightforward quote in Wierwille's exposition (which is clearly false but arguably forgivable as a rhetorical device) is "You are the man!" I doubt that's the scripture he refers to in his statement.
The problem with Wierwille's summary, as I see it, is not the throwaway line "isn't that a wonderful verse of scripture." It is the following, which Goey referred to (and which Plots would have to agree is NOT a rhetorical device and not acceptable by anyone's definition):
quote:How would you like to have been Nathan? If Nathan had gone down there with any other story, do you know what would have happened to him? David would have had Nathan beheaded.
Umm, no he would not. The BEST that can be said for Wierwille's statement is that it's baseless speculation. That's the BEST! Wierwille was quoted as saying "where the Word of God remains silent, he who speaks is a fool." Fine. In telling this story, he was a fool.
One thing that needs to be stated (or is it repeated?):
Wierwille's exact statement regarding the women of the kingdom is as follows:
quote:A few people knew about the sequence of events leading to David's marriage, but nobody had a right to say anything because David was king and every woman in the kingdom was technically the property of the king or belonged to the king.
There are so many actual errors in that statement it's hard to tell where to begin. I've heard one attempted defense of the statement, but I utterly reject it as a willful defiance of logic and language.
Here are the errors.
1. "Technically." Technically means there's a technicality. That technicality would have to exist in law or culture. Well, we know that the technicality did not exist in law, for we have the Law and we know that Wierwille's statement was not part of it. We also know from Jewish culture that there is no such provision, for Jewish culture was... Shoot, it was the LAW! There is nothing in the Torah or the Talmud to back up Wierwille's assertion. Therefore, technically, Wierwille's statement is an actual error.
Second: what's this business about no one having a right to say anything? If no one had a right to say anything, then Nathan had no right to say anything. If no one had a right to say anything, then the commandment against adultery is meaningless.
Defense of Wierwille in this matter requires denial of the Biblical record and wishful thinking. As Goey said, the only defense of his statement is the speculation that God revealed this stuff to Wierwille directly. I've often said people seem to resort to "revelation" in order to validate opinions and positions that have no basis in fact or truth. How can you argue with "God told me?" I can't. And I won't. I can only compare the declared revelation with the Bible, and when they conflict, I'm tossing the garbage and keeping the Bible. That was the standard Wierwille (indirectly) taught me. It was the standard I tried to hold before I ever heard of Wierwille, and it's the standard I will continue to hold, regardless of any efforts to exalt the word of a man over God's Word.
Finally (really): You are correct sir! Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. That statement was nimoypneustos (Spock-breathed).
1. Wierwille's definition of "private interpretation."
First, I totally agree that II Peter 1:20 is discussing the ORIGIN, not the MEANING of scripture. I see no room for debate about this. I hesitated to call it an "actual error" because I thought it might fall under "error of interpretation."
Would anyone like to discuss this one? Have at it.
Tied in with this is the Wierwillian definition of "interpretation".
His definition of ????????/?????? - epilusis/epilu? is based on Bullinger's definition given in How to Enjoy the Bible, but as usual, without fully understanding it.
Bullinger defines "interpretation" as a "letting loose" and gives several non-biblical uses of the word in context, one of which is to unloose dogs, as upon the game.
Bullinger's further examples, as well as his citing of bible verses using forms of ????????/?????? - epilusis/epilu? indicate that the emphasis is on unloosing, unbinding, opening, etc. Wierwille, again, without really understanding what Bullinger is saying, emphasizes the "dogs upon the game" part of the example, writing that we must not let our minds "run vagrantly" as dogs might.
This is not to say that Bullinger was necessarily correct, or to cite Bullinger as a higher authority, but to show that Wierwille did use Bullinger as an authority when it suited him, but that his poor understanding of the point Bullinger was making twisted his definition.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
I'm going to jump in and ask Jerry not to answer Mike's question (he may, of course, choose to ignore my request).
Mike, this thread is about actual errors in PFAL and Wierwille's books, which you claim to be God-breathed and therefore perfect. You have FAILED to address a single alleged "actual error," choosing repeatedly to attack the integrity of the Bible rather than defend the integrity of youuurrrrrr preciousssss PFAL.
I am going to say this again: If you want to start a thread about actual errors in the Bible, be my guest. But STOP trying to derail this thread. It's rude.
I was mulling over Jerry's "SpiritCommunication" post, when something started bugging me. Didn't VPW make a similar statement when he was doing "The Giver and The Gift" that "God can only give what He is" too?
Not to derail - but Rafe, could you tell me which TWI book you quoted regarding the women in the kingdom being the property of the king? I looked for it (and I'll admit - I skimmed), and couldn't find it. Thanks!
Oh.. btw - Jerry, good to "see" you again. I didn't participate in your discussions way back when, but I read them with great interest. Thanks to you, too.
The discussion on Nathan is intended to point out the principle of "correction." So go to the PFAL book and look for the part where Wierwille discusses doctrine, reproof and correction. You'll find your quote on p. 86. (Just thought I'd retrace my steps, in case you have to look for it again someday).
Now, Zix:
PFAL p. 78
quote:God being Spirit can only speak to what He is. God cannot speak to the natural human mind... Things in the natural realm may be known by the five senses - seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. But God is Spirit and, therefore, cannot speak to brain cells; God cannot speak to a person's mind. It is a law and God never oversteps His own laws.
So we see, first, that Wierwille made both statements. Zixar was not confused. Neither was Jerry.
The statement I just quoted is so absurd I cannot believe I missed it for the original list. God has to give us spirit to communicate with us because God is Spirit and cannot communicate to our minds or brains. Well, not to be a pain in the butt about it, but HOW CAN OUR SPIRIT COMMUNICATE WITH OUR BRAINS IF GOD ALMIGHTY CANNOT? Duhhhhhh.
Rafael you opened it up to discuss the PFAL image of God idea -- so here goes...
The image of God. Wierwille argues that God is spirit therefore his image is spirit. In reading different studies one point suggested that the phrases God is spirit, God is light, God is a consuming fire and God is love are regarding the nature of God not the image. I pondered that for awhile and looked up the definition of nature - here is what I found from Miriam Webster:
Main Entry: na·ture
Pronunciation: 'nA-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin natura, from natus, past participle of nasci to be born -- more at NATION
Date: 14th century
1 a : the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : ESSENCE b : DISPOSITION, TEMPERAMENT
Inherent character or constitution of a person or thing... food for thought. If God is not describing His image with these phrases - rather his character or constitution we would need to rethink the idea of the image of God. I am not saying this disproves body - soul - spirit but using the idea or wording of image = spirit might not be the right way to go to prove your theology.
In other words the "image of God" may be quite a bit bigger concept than what Wierwille understood. Speaking of which, Jesus Christ was the only perfect man - perhaps his life would shed insight into this concept.
2Cr 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
And also Genesis 9 puts an interesting spin on this:
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
This image of God in Genesis is the same phrasing.
[This message was edited by troubledwine on January 27, 2003 at 8:47.]
I want to highlight one of Jerry's observations because it's tucked into the whole "image" discussion when, in fact, it is its very own actual error.
Wierwille writes that the image of God, namely spirit, that was "created" in Adam. The Bible uses the word "made," which is contrary to Wierwille's precise definitions. According to Wierwille, the body was formed, the soul was made and the spirit was created. The Bible says very clearly that man was "made" in the image of God. Since Wierwille equates the "image of God" with "spirit," his insistence that the spirit was "created" is an actual error.
I do not think it rude of me at all to ask GerryB that question!
I've been standing back in the wings and only lightly commenting on very pertinent places lately. My latest request of Gerry IMO is very much in line with this thread’s theme, whether you think so or not. That’s why I establish it here with this repetition.
As for you disappointment with how I handle your questions, I have VERY well thought out reasons for doing so in the style I did ON THIS THREAD only. As time goes by I will explain this strategy more voluminously and more clearly. By re-reading some of my earlier posts here any reader can see that I have been explaining myself at times, but you just don’t like the explanations.
So, Gerry, please do give us your philosophy (briefly) in how you handle BIBLE contradictions. Any differences in the way you handle PFAL contradictions? If so why?
I pose the same questions to you Rafeal, as well as to all the readers here. I think it’s good to be absolutely clear on strategy here. If PFAL is from God, then you’re painting yourself into a corner. Careful planning can prevent this POSSIBILITY. I suggest extreme clarity in strategy for dealing with apparent difficulties in BOTH the Bible remnants and PFAL.
[This message was edited by Mike on January 27, 2003 at 9:16.]
Mike, start a thread about how to handle apparent Bible contradictions. Have at it. This thread is about actual errors in PFAL and your derailment is intentional. And rude.
However, I'll back off after saying this what I have planned here.
We were taught HOW to handle difficulties in God's Word. I believe that IN THIS THREAD it is crucial for people to employ those same techniques for handling PFAL difficulties.
Why is that rude for me to beat that particular drum? Because it subverts your INTENDED message of this thread. My rudeness is solely in opposing your intentions.
Besides, haven't you noticed that, as much as I disagree with this, rudeness is the name of the game here at GS. EVERYONE EXERCISES THEIR RIGHT TO BE RUDE HERE!!! If you don't think so, why don't you join with EWB's thread and try to make this a less nasty place to place controversial ideas on the table? I'm all for lessons in manners, and the best teaching is a good examnple!
If I really wanted to be rude, I'd answer your de-railment charge by posting HERRE all the silly tangential meanderings that you have engaged in with others more of your own leanings here. THAT would be a rude derailment on my part, so I refrain.
It wont take any NEUTRAL reader of this thread long to see that you don't mind your own derailments, and you don't mind tangents that don't threaten your own theme here, but when an opposing voice points out flaws or ommissions of yours THEN it's a rude derailment.
As the "official" minority voice here I now will back off politely... for a while.
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
Mike
I'm happy to see that this subject, that of Dr stating something in PFAL that's not in the Biblical record, is getting some fair treatment here.
Whether he "makes up" something that can be easily and legitimately inferred from the record, or whether he got a revelation that "such and such" was actually so, even though not in the record, either way I'm happy to have been taught.
I often stand back and ask myself, "What am I being taught here?"
What I got taught here on these pages of PFAL was that it's sometimes a good risk to stand with God in spite of the opposition. I tried to apply this as TWI-2 was slowly forming in 1982, but found it to be a VERY difficult lesson to apply.
Maybe if some of us older grads had learned this lesson better and sooner, maybe if ENOUGH of us had really HEARD what Dr was teaching regarding Nathan, maybe then we would be now discussing the great courage and inspiration that our modern "Nathans" displayed in facing down the oppressive TWI-2 garbage. Instead, none of us really learned this lesson of Nathan... not yet.
I'm also happy to see that there is sometimes a willingness to "give the preacher a break" because it's very easy for critics of PFAL with the opposite attitude to really lose it in the zeal to tear apart illegitimately.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Plotinus-Good Point
Adding emotions to people in the bible is no problem for me, and shouldn't be for anyone, as long as it does not change what the scripture clearly says.
I guess I should add - reasonable emotions.
Having emotions is not a sin
:)-->
[This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 26, 2003 at 11:39.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Concerning VPW's take on Nathan Plots posted:
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Plotinus makes a good point, namely that preachers frequently expand upon the written records in order to make the lesson fresh, or to make it stick in the congregation's minds a bit better.
After all, how many of us in TWI heard Ephesians quoted verbatim at us so many times it lost all impact?
Giving Wierwille a pass on this one because of "preacher syndrome" doesn't validate the error, it just recognizes the source of it.
I keep on saying this over and over, and will continue to do so: The only way for these error discussions to have any lasting value is to be as objective about them as humanly possible. If VPW said dechomai always meant one thing, and we can find examples where it means what he said lambano meant, then that's proof we can offer without emotion or sentiment. Or apeitheia/apistia. If he said something that turns out to be right, or at least defensible, we acknowledge it and move on. We don't argue just to prove everything he said was a lie, that only makes us look like idiots. We don't hang a man on inferences and implications, there is certainly enough rope in the facts themselves to do it without vengeance, disgust, or hate motivating us to see things that aren't there to make the job easier.
In other words, if Hitler killed 6,000,000 Jews, we still have to give him a full trial to find him guilty of killing number 6,000,001. He'd have gone to the gallows for just 1, but justice would not be served by piling charges on without indisputable evidence.
The difference between a trial and this endeavor is that in a trial, the lawyers are under no real compulsion to confuse their oratory with the truth. Whoever puts the better spin on the speech wins the trial. We can do better. Save the axe grinding for wood chopping, and stick to the facts.
Wierwille never said everything out of his mouth was straight from revelation. Treating every niggling thing he said as if he did is pedantry taken to ridiculous extremes. Any hint that our arguments are made from malice diminishes their impact to the audience, regardless of their truth.
Is that so hard to understand?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Wordwolf said
"I still haven't worked that business about the
"outer darkness" yet, but I have it pencilled
in for further study. If you've worked it in
detail, I'd love a copy."
Please forgive my clumsiness. I've forgotten how to do those nify quote brackets you guys use.
:)-->
I haven't worked that any further, but I have discovered and error in it. I equated the Kingdom of God/Heaven with the New Heaven and New Earth That is, I equated being cast out of the Kingdom with the verse in Rev 22:15. That can't be, cause the Kingdom ends before the New Heaven & Earth according to I Cor. 15:24-28. So, I still believe that some Christians will not enjoy their eternity, but I don't think the "mist of darkness" fate mentioned in II Peter can be equated with Jesus' prophesies about some folks being cast out of his Kingdom.
And Rafael, the quote about "linguistic ledgerdemain (sp?) and a degree of intrepidity is from a Star Trek movie. The Undiscovered Country I think. They were trying to rescue Kirk and McCoy in a stolen/borrowed/rented Klingon ship and had to pass for Klingons in order to get past the sentries.
Do I get a cookie?
:D-->
Peace, y'all
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Someone mentioned Private Interpretation. I think this is one of the major factual errors, becauase it's the foundation of the whole "How the Bible interprets itself" doctrine.
Dr. Weirwille quoted II Peter 1:20 and then went on that memorable tirade about Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jumpup saying what they think a scripture means. His definition of "private interpretation" is a person expressing his thougts about the meaning of the Scripture.
The problem is, this is exactly the opposite of the context and usage of the phrase "private interpretation". The context is about how we GOT the truths we believe, not what we THINK about them. Peter is asserting that ... "...the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. "
Verse 20 means that the Word didn't come by Moses, John, Isaiah et al making it up. It wasn't contrived by a bunch of conmen, it was given by revelation.
Weirwille's twisting of the context and subsequent "I don't give a care what you think!" statement paves the way for him to tell us to turn off our minds, not to try to apply logic and reason to his teachings and to just let him "unfold it" for us. Anything less than humble acquiescence to his revealing of the mathemeatical exactness and scientific precision of God's mathcless word was Private Interpretation.
We got so thoroughly bamboozled by this error, that the twisted phrase was reduced to the acronym "PI".
Anyway, that's one that definitely should be added to the list I think.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Actual errors
Here a couple more big' uns.
1)God can only speak to what He is.
VP asserted, based on no Scriptural evidence that I can recall, that God, being spirit, can only speak to what He is. He built this into the doctrine about Jesus briding "the chasm between the natural man and God" and then, into the battle of the sense vs revelation faith doctrine. All of this is based on the absurd and incorrect teaching that God Almight can't communicate with anyone who doesn't have holy spirit in or upon them.
According to VP's teaching, Adam and Eve lost the spirit immediately when they sinned. But Genesis 3:9-13 indicate that God spoke with both Adam and Eve right afterward. He also had a lengthy conversation with Cain right after he murdered Abel. Did Cain have holy spirit upon him? There's no Biblical evidence to support this.
There's also the problem of God communicating with un-annointed folks like King Abimelech (Gen 20:3)and Laban, Jacob's crooked father-in-law (Gen 31:24) by dreams.
Is a dream an avenue of the five senses? Nope. What your mind experiences in a dream is neither seen, nor heard, nor felt, nor smelt, nor tasted. It's beyond the five senses. So according to the Bible, God spoke to people who didn't have holy spirit in or on them by an avenue other than their five senses. He didn't "come into concretion". So VP's assertion that God can only speak to what He is, and the subsequent doctrine about a chasm between the natural man and God is bunk. BUNK I say!!
2)The Image of God is spirit
This relates to the erroneous definition of bara that someone else has already brought up. Dovetailed with Dr's tortured body-soul-spirit, formed-made-created masterpiece is the assertion that God created the spirit He put in Adam & Eve and that it was in this spirit category that He made man in his image. He quoted Genesis 1:27 which says, " So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
It all sounds pretty good unless you back up and read verse 26.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
According to VP, the word made [asah] refers specifically to the soul of man. Yet here in verse 26 it's used in conjunction with the word "image" which VP says is spirit. What so amazes me about this particular error regarding Genesis 1:27 is the fact that it's so blatantly wrong, because the contradicting evidence is right next to it! but I (we?) believed it for years.
Oh well. As I said, those two are biggies, imho, because they are the foundation for two or three other doctrines, which are also erroneous.
Relinquishing the soapbox.
:)-->
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Jerry - It's good to have you back, even if it may not be for the marathon posting sessions you used to do. We've missed you. I hope everything else in your life is working out as well as it possibly could.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Jerry: Now, that's what I'm talking about!
:)-->
Another record to support your first factual error would be when God called Samuel as a boy, and he thought Eli was calling him.
Then there is the burning bush, too...
Good call.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Thanks Steve. It's good to be back. Everything else in my life is actually going pretty well, too.
:)-->
Thanks Zixar.
And by the way, not to belabor the point about Nathan, but I think the big reason I'd count this as an actual error is, in the PFAL book, Dr. Weirwille concluded that section with the statement, "Isn't that a trememdous verse of Scritpure when we examine it closely to see the Greatness of God's Word." (paragraph 3, page 88.)
I challenge Mike or anyone else to find an actual scriptural reference anywhere in Weirwille's 2 page exposition about David and Nathan. He never cited a Scripture in the first place; just started telling his version of the story. Then, after accusing David of wanting to behead the prophet, falsely stating that the King had a right to any woman in the country, and falsely stating that it was only afterthis correction that David was called a man after God's own heart (Which Raf has already pointed out is a contradiction of the Bible), he had te audacity to talk about having examined a verse of Scripture in its depth--when he never even cited any!
Had any mainstream preacher done this we would have ridiculed him mercilessly. Somehow, we let "The Man fo God" got away with it unchallenged.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Wow. Busy day. Nice posts all around. A few replies:
Vertical Limit: Ditto to what you said.
Goey: Ditto to what you said, too.
Zixar: A couple of things to reply to here. First, I agree with your premise. It's the purpose of this thread. Until the figures of speech discussion (in which I conceded in the very first post that yeah, maybe it is an interpretational error), we tried to hold to that. The figures of speech discussion came several hundred posts into this thread, so I figured the track record of "actual errors" covered our little diversion there. Technically, it was a derailing, but I'm not complaining. The figures of speech debate totally validates your point. My only contention is that an uninformed reader might think you're making your point as though I am unaware of it. To the contrary, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the criteria of actual errors and always have.
The other point you make, Zix, is, "Wierwille never said everything out of his mouth was straight from revelation. Treating every niggling thing he said as if he did is pedantry taken to ridiculous extremes."
You do realize, of course, that the purpose of this thread was, in part, to address exactly the extreme and unsound point of view you criticize as "pedantry taken to ridiculous extremes." In other words, we agree. Again.
Finally, you say: "Any hint that our arguments are made from malice diminishes their impact to the audience, regardless of their truth."
To which I reply, anyone who has read this far into the thread and come away with the impression that the argument we're making is purely malicious will have already reached that conclusion before reading anything. I respect their RIGHT to do so, but I do not respect their DECISION to do so, and will not bend over backwards to assure them of my integrity (since NOTHING I do or say will have that effect).
JERRY!!!!!!
Jerry rocks. God bless you, man.
Okay, let's address the errors Jerry has proposed:
1. Wierwille's definition of "private interpretation."
First, I totally agree that II Peter 1:20 is discussing the ORIGIN, not the MEANING of scripture. I see no room for debate about this. I hesitated to call it an "actual error" because I thought it might fall under "error of interpretation."
Would anyone like to discuss this one? Have at it.
2. God can only speak to that which He is.
What can I say? You nailed it. Actual error. Any debate?
3. The image of God is spirit.
Ditto. Discussion?
4. Regarding Nathan: I actually changed my mind on this subject while writing this post, so forgive me if I seem to contradict myself in the paragraphs which follow. Wierwille begins with an illustration and I give him license to have some fun with his source material as much as I would any other preacher (I loved the way Ralph Dubofsky expressed Jesus' thoughts after the disciples questioned whether it was him walking on the water. According to Dubofsky, Jesus wanted to reply, "YOU IDIOTS! WHO ELSE WOULD BE OUT HERE?")
The only straightforward quote in Wierwille's exposition (which is clearly false but arguably forgivable as a rhetorical device) is "You are the man!" I doubt that's the scripture he refers to in his statement.
The problem with Wierwille's summary, as I see it, is not the throwaway line "isn't that a wonderful verse of scripture." It is the following, which Goey referred to (and which Plots would have to agree is NOT a rhetorical device and not acceptable by anyone's definition):
Umm, no he would not. The BEST that can be said for Wierwille's statement is that it's baseless speculation. That's the BEST! Wierwille was quoted as saying "where the Word of God remains silent, he who speaks is a fool." Fine. In telling this story, he was a fool.
One thing that needs to be stated (or is it repeated?):
Wierwille's exact statement regarding the women of the kingdom is as follows:
There are so many actual errors in that statement it's hard to tell where to begin. I've heard one attempted defense of the statement, but I utterly reject it as a willful defiance of logic and language.
Here are the errors.
1. "Technically." Technically means there's a technicality. That technicality would have to exist in law or culture. Well, we know that the technicality did not exist in law, for we have the Law and we know that Wierwille's statement was not part of it. We also know from Jewish culture that there is no such provision, for Jewish culture was... Shoot, it was the LAW! There is nothing in the Torah or the Talmud to back up Wierwille's assertion. Therefore, technically, Wierwille's statement is an actual error.
Second: what's this business about no one having a right to say anything? If no one had a right to say anything, then Nathan had no right to say anything. If no one had a right to say anything, then the commandment against adultery is meaningless.
Defense of Wierwille in this matter requires denial of the Biblical record and wishful thinking. As Goey said, the only defense of his statement is the speculation that God revealed this stuff to Wierwille directly. I've often said people seem to resort to "revelation" in order to validate opinions and positions that have no basis in fact or truth. How can you argue with "God told me?" I can't. And I won't. I can only compare the declared revelation with the Bible, and when they conflict, I'm tossing the garbage and keeping the Bible. That was the standard Wierwille (indirectly) taught me. It was the standard I tried to hold before I ever heard of Wierwille, and it's the standard I will continue to hold, regardless of any efforts to exalt the word of a man over God's Word.
Finally (really): You are correct sir! Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. That statement was nimoypneustos (Spock-breathed).
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi JerryB,
I was wondering what your philosophy is in HOW one should handle Bible contradictions, apparent or actual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
His definition of ????????/?????? - epilusis/epilu? is based on Bullinger's definition given in How to Enjoy the Bible, but as usual, without fully understanding it.
Bullinger defines "interpretation" as a "letting loose" and gives several non-biblical uses of the word in context, one of which is to unloose dogs, as upon the game.
Bullinger's further examples, as well as his citing of bible verses using forms of ????????/?????? - epilusis/epilu? indicate that the emphasis is on unloosing, unbinding, opening, etc. Wierwille, again, without really understanding what Bullinger is saying, emphasizes the "dogs upon the game" part of the example, writing that we must not let our minds "run vagrantly" as dogs might.
This is not to say that Bullinger was necessarily correct, or to cite Bullinger as a higher authority, but to show that Wierwille did use Bullinger as an authority when it suited him, but that his poor understanding of the point Bullinger was making twisted his definition.
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
Raf
I'm going to jump in and ask Jerry not to answer Mike's question (he may, of course, choose to ignore my request).
Mike, this thread is about actual errors in PFAL and Wierwille's books, which you claim to be God-breathed and therefore perfect. You have FAILED to address a single alleged "actual error," choosing repeatedly to attack the integrity of the Bible rather than defend the integrity of youuurrrrrr preciousssss PFAL.
I am going to say this again: If you want to start a thread about actual errors in the Bible, be my guest. But STOP trying to derail this thread. It's rude.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
I was mulling over Jerry's "SpiritCommunication" post, when something started bugging me. Didn't VPW make a similar statement when he was doing "The Giver and The Gift" that "God can only give what He is" too?
Or have I gotten the two confused?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Jesus Christ is Not God, p. 130
Zixar has inadvertently pointed out another actual error. For you see, according to this statement, God is MANNA!
:D-->
The other point Zix raises requires a bit of digging. I'll get to it today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
Not to derail - but Rafe, could you tell me which TWI book you quoted regarding the women in the kingdom being the property of the king? I looked for it (and I'll admit - I skimmed), and couldn't find it. Thanks!
Oh.. btw - Jerry, good to "see" you again. I didn't participate in your discussions way back when, but I read them with great interest. Thanks to you, too.
Hope R. color>size>face>
THREE CHEERS FOR THE BUCCANEERS!!!size> color>
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok, first Hope:
The discussion on Nathan is intended to point out the principle of "correction." So go to the PFAL book and look for the part where Wierwille discusses doctrine, reproof and correction. You'll find your quote on p. 86. (Just thought I'd retrace my steps, in case you have to look for it again someday).
Now, Zix:
PFAL p. 78
So we see, first, that Wierwille made both statements. Zixar was not confused. Neither was Jerry.
The statement I just quoted is so absurd I cannot believe I missed it for the original list. God has to give us spirit to communicate with us because God is Spirit and cannot communicate to our minds or brains. Well, not to be a pain in the butt about it, but HOW CAN OUR SPIRIT COMMUNICATE WITH OUR BRAINS IF GOD ALMIGHTY CANNOT? Duhhhhhh.
Terrific actual error.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
troubledwine
Rafael you opened it up to discuss the PFAL image of God idea -- so here goes...
The image of God. Wierwille argues that God is spirit therefore his image is spirit. In reading different studies one point suggested that the phrases God is spirit, God is light, God is a consuming fire and God is love are regarding the nature of God not the image. I pondered that for awhile and looked up the definition of nature - here is what I found from Miriam Webster:
Main Entry: na·ture
Pronunciation: 'nA-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin natura, from natus, past participle of nasci to be born -- more at NATION
Date: 14th century
1 a : the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : ESSENCE b : DISPOSITION, TEMPERAMENT
Inherent character or constitution of a person or thing... food for thought. If God is not describing His image with these phrases - rather his character or constitution we would need to rethink the idea of the image of God. I am not saying this disproves body - soul - spirit but using the idea or wording of image = spirit might not be the right way to go to prove your theology.
In other words the "image of God" may be quite a bit bigger concept than what Wierwille understood. Speaking of which, Jesus Christ was the only perfect man - perhaps his life would shed insight into this concept.
-------------------------------------------------------
2Cr 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
And also Genesis 9 puts an interesting spin on this:
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
This image of God in Genesis is the same phrasing.
[This message was edited by troubledwine on January 27, 2003 at 8:47.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thanks, tw. Nice work.
I want to highlight one of Jerry's observations because it's tucked into the whole "image" discussion when, in fact, it is its very own actual error.
Wierwille writes that the image of God, namely spirit, that was "created" in Adam. The Bible uses the word "made," which is contrary to Wierwille's precise definitions. According to Wierwille, the body was formed, the soul was made and the spirit was created. The Bible says very clearly that man was "made" in the image of God. Since Wierwille equates the "image of God" with "spirit," his insistence that the spirit was "created" is an actual error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
I do not think it rude of me at all to ask GerryB that question!
I've been standing back in the wings and only lightly commenting on very pertinent places lately. My latest request of Gerry IMO is very much in line with this thread’s theme, whether you think so or not. That’s why I establish it here with this repetition.
As for you disappointment with how I handle your questions, I have VERY well thought out reasons for doing so in the style I did ON THIS THREAD only. As time goes by I will explain this strategy more voluminously and more clearly. By re-reading some of my earlier posts here any reader can see that I have been explaining myself at times, but you just don’t like the explanations.
So, Gerry, please do give us your philosophy (briefly) in how you handle BIBLE contradictions. Any differences in the way you handle PFAL contradictions? If so why?
I pose the same questions to you Rafeal, as well as to all the readers here. I think it’s good to be absolutely clear on strategy here. If PFAL is from God, then you’re painting yourself into a corner. Careful planning can prevent this POSSIBILITY. I suggest extreme clarity in strategy for dealing with apparent difficulties in BOTH the Bible remnants and PFAL.
[This message was edited by Mike on January 27, 2003 at 9:16.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Now for another attempt at contributing here.
Regarding “private interpretation” has anyone recently seen Earl Burton’s article in the Festschrift gift book given to Dr in 1981 or 82?
The title of his article is “Scope and Structure in II Peter” and it seems to lend a lot of data to the discussion of this area.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike, start a thread about how to handle apparent Bible contradictions. Have at it. This thread is about actual errors in PFAL and your derailment is intentional. And rude.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I again, repsectfully disagree with you Rafael.
However, I'll back off after saying this what I have planned here.
We were taught HOW to handle difficulties in God's Word. I believe that IN THIS THREAD it is crucial for people to employ those same techniques for handling PFAL difficulties.
Why is that rude for me to beat that particular drum? Because it subverts your INTENDED message of this thread. My rudeness is solely in opposing your intentions.
Besides, haven't you noticed that, as much as I disagree with this, rudeness is the name of the game here at GS. EVERYONE EXERCISES THEIR RIGHT TO BE RUDE HERE!!! If you don't think so, why don't you join with EWB's thread and try to make this a less nasty place to place controversial ideas on the table? I'm all for lessons in manners, and the best teaching is a good examnple!
If I really wanted to be rude, I'd answer your de-railment charge by posting HERRE all the silly tangential meanderings that you have engaged in with others more of your own leanings here. THAT would be a rude derailment on my part, so I refrain.
It wont take any NEUTRAL reader of this thread long to see that you don't mind your own derailments, and you don't mind tangents that don't threaten your own theme here, but when an opposing voice points out flaws or ommissions of yours THEN it's a rude derailment.
As the "official" minority voice here I now will back off politely... for a while.
Have at it.
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.