Actual Errors in PFAL

Ham · January 28, 2009

you don't call this a trial, do you? You haven't HEARD anything, yet..

Ham · January 29, 2009

still waiting.. what about the genealogy..

*do dee do dee doo dee doooo*..

the stretched, overheated coffee isn't going to be very palatable a heck of a lot longer.. I'll have to add some more salt.. maybe "stretched" tea bags to spruce it up..

:biglaugh:

WordWolf · January 29, 2009

Waysider,
Thanks, I read Mike's comments in the snowstorm thread. I was asking about whether he ever provided any rebuttal in this "Actual Errors in PFAL" thread.

I just finished skimming the entire thread in one sitting.

Here's the closest he came to rebutting on this thread.

=============================First response was page 7.

We interrupt this thread for an important announcement: I am leaving. There is a fresh new thread where I'll explain why. Come and see.

page 8.

Rafael, Don't worry I'm here and saving these pages. These are valuable exercises for the future, after I work out some other higher priority snags you haven't yet seen. Ever Google for "Bible Contradictions" ??? Very instructive, especially the websites by total unbelievers. Sea ya. DIVE! DIVE! Ah oooOOOOGAH! Ah ooOOOOGAH! Batten down the hatches! We're going down! Kschhhhhhhhh Kschhhhhhh Ka blub Bblubbbbb bl bl bl blub ccc ........ .... (up scope___rig for silent running) ....

Ah! Rafael, Something we can agree on. You wrote: "I did not know that. Very enlightening. In my opinion, it's fair game to use modern anachronisms to make a point (ie, the prophet Elisha doesn't come out to meet Naaman because he's having tea and chocolate chip cookies). It's a device. " Another term is pedagogical (sp?) tool? I've scolded for usuing things like this. Where's Gamiel when we need him?

"Wierwille's movement came to nought..." in some, but nought in others! It ain't over till the fatted calf sings. Gamiel was semi-wong. He certainly was appreciated by Petr and John. They accepted his intervention. Dr knew that there were no machine guns in the OT, so he felt free to use them as teaching devices. For him to latch onto a factually innacurate device does not negate tht truth that the inaccuracy helps illustrate. Ditto for the patent date on Milton Bradley's version of the hoochie coochie board. In the older 1930's movie version of the "Hunchback of Notre Dame" with Charles Laughton, a spinning knife is used as a crude polygraph. Pendants answering "yes-no" questions were used long before the Magic Eight Ball or even modern bowling were invented. A truth may be illustrated by words that are not true to fact. This is the definition of figure of speech we were given.

Rafael, Eventually, I think all of these items on this thread are legitimate for discusion and inquiry. Many in the past I already did so with, just not posted... yet. I'm thinking of starting a thead for old grads who want to COME BACK to PFAL for a second close look. On this proposed thread, "Apparent PFAL Contradictions" would be fair game for many sub-discussions and side-discussions.

How about this. 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. Wierwille made two statements that are without basis or proof. 1. That they were in town for bar-mitzvah. 2. That "illegitimate" children were treated differently than other children for the purpose of bar-mitvah. Prove it. You casually dismiss this as an "apparent" contradiction or error. I call it an actual error. It is flat out on its face wrong. Go ahead and show me that Wierwille was right (and no, you don't get to quote the PFAL book as "proof"). And don't tell me that you have the proof but you're waiting for the right time for me to step up to your telescope to see it. I'm not asking you to start another endless Mike thread. Just address one of the errors we've posted here. No more "I have the answers, trust me, I just haven't posted them yet." Just post already. It's hard to be patient when you always manage to find the time to post about how you have no time to post. You always find the time to post that you have the answers we're seeking from you, but you never have the time to post the answers. It's tiring, and it's wearing thin. Actually, it starting wearing thin weeks ago, but when I told you then to put up or shut up, you called me a cruel taskmaster. So I waited. And waited. You disappeared. You came back. And how much progress? Not an inch. Why? Because you're too busy to post anything other than that you're too busy to post. You know what? No one demands anything from you. But when you keep coming on, saying we're wrong, providing ZERO documentation to even STATE your case, much less back it up, it gets tiring. So I'll say it again. Put up or shut up. If you don't have time to type out the answer, then shut up until you do. I promise not to claim victory. But if you have the time to tell me you have the answer, then please have the decency to share it with the rest of the class. We're waiting.

Sorry Garth, Zixar, Goey, Steve, Hope. I was NOT ingnoring you, just heavily preoccupied with an arm-wrestling. I dooooo hope this doesn't influence your vote on who is winning, me or Rafael. I have to leave to get dinner. I'm going out to a real pub, hopefully with no arm wrestling challenges. Later I'll try and read the posts I had little time to read while writing the above posts. This has been fun. (to be continued)

Rafael, Ok. I accept to put up, but on a temporary basis. I slightly injured my back, so I have a squeegee holiday today. My established policy in performing PFAL mastery is to "put up" my focus to a high standard. My primary mastering activity is simply READING the books. I do, however, alot a small percentage of my time and focus to deal with Apparent Contradictions, ACs. I will engage for a time in pondering this AC, and then go back my more normal routine of focusing on what DOES fit from PFAL, which is massive. This is my policy, even if the AC is still unresolved. When I came back to reading PFAL, again, my appreciation for the truths taught soared. ACs are but tiny specks in unwashed food scraps, while the Thanksgiving Meal of my main reading material is constantly nourishing to the growing body of knowledge that FITS. The ACs are the exceptions, the FITs are the rule. Some ACs I've been wondering about for years, but they are minor in importance. Some ACs that used to bug me got worked out well as the years go by. This is my first "go" at this particular AC. But, Rafael, please try and put yourself in my shoes, here. For ME, visiting this thread is like Googling a thousand websites for "Bible Contradictions." When YOU see an intractable AC of the Bible for the first time, how do you react? If you can't deal with it immediately, do you chuck out the whole Bible? Or do you view it as an interesting puzzle for the future, that may even yield a surprising bonus result if solved? THAT's how I view PFAL ACs. This challenge from you is like a friendly game of arm wrestling, a little match at a local pub. After it's over, we both go back to our business. Tomorrow's match is another day. There were times when I young in the Word, and was hit with very tough ACs in the Bible. A few did shake me to a state of nausea. How's THAT for cognitive dissonance? But I gradually learned to resist that "rush to judgement" syndrome, and take Bible ACs in stride. Ditto for PFAL ACs. These things take some time, but they shouldn't get primary time. If after a few internet hours or so, I still don't have THE convincing answer to satisfy you, then I will file it away in my spiritual closet and may return to it on another date to work it again. Rafael, you wrote: "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. Wierwille made two statements that are without basis or proof." Let's look at the print record, NOT for proof of PFAL correctness, but to see more clearly the stated charge. This brings us back to page 57 of the PFAL book, where Dr writes: **************************************************************** "Luke 2 contains one verse of Scripture that for many years I was not able to understand. Luke 2:42: And when he [Jesus] was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. "I knew that according to Jewish law, a boy became a man, going through Bar Mitzvah, when he was thirteen. But Jesus was taken to the temple when He was twelve. I could not understand it so I considered that there might be a mistake in the text. I looked in every critical Greek text that I could find and checked every other source I could think of; but I never found Jesus to be thirteen when He went to the synagogue. Every text concurred on the age of twelve. Finally I came across an old piece of literature which explained that according to ancient Judean law when a boy was conceived illegitimately, this child was brought to the temple at the age of twelve instead of thirteen." "This explains why Jesus could not communicate with the people in His own hometown. They thought that a child conceived illegitimately certainly could not have great knowledge or do wonderful works. They were offended by Him, would not listen to hear enough to believe when He spoke, and thus suffered from apistia, unbelief." *****************************PFAL p.57************ The overall context of these paragraphs goes back as far as page 53, where a key verse was brought up and is being explained. The verse is Matthew 13:58 - "And he [Jesus] did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief." It looks to me that the Luke 2 verse is only loosely brought in as confirmatory or illustrative. Dr is totally up front with this item being one in which he confused. He uses the phrase "for many years I was not able to understand" to preface this issue. The Luke 2 verse can be thought of as just another reason Dr was confused. I say the Luke 2 verse is only "loosely" brought in because it's not used to derive anything. Nothing in the main point is hanging on this. The way "temple" comes up again in the main paragraph of p.57: "But Jesus was taken to the temple when He was twelve." This may, or may not be directly connected to the Luke 2 verse. It doesn't matter, though, because it's tangential to the main point. The main point is "Why did Jesus have a tough time in his home town?" Next Dr further itemizes his state of uncertainty thusly: "...I could not understand it... I looked in every... and checked every.... but I never found... Finally I came across an old piece of literature which explained..." He's totally up front as to the uncertainty of this connection, from an official documentation point of view, and goes even STILL further to explain this in the video class soundtrack: "And then one day I ran across a piece of literature that I have since lost I cannot find it but it was in an old text where I learned this that in ancient Jewish law when a boy was..." Now, in applying my newly adopted (5 years now) perspective to these paragraphs of Dr's admitted 5-senses uncertainty, I proceed to the next paragraph. What is this Newly adopted perspective? That, IN ADDITION to Dr's 5-senses research efforts, God is giving him revelation. This is a new principle for me to apply. I resisted it, vehemently at times, for may years in the past. Five years ago I gave it a try as I came back with meekness to reading PFAL. Applying this new key to the next paragraph I meekly read: "This explains why Jesus could not communicate with the people in His own hometown." Now, Rafael, are you going to ask me to leave this overall context and look at all the timing involved in exactly WHEN on the calendar Luke 2:42 occurred? I say, I don't care when it occurred. That's not germane to the story. Besides it could take a lot of time. I’m not good at tracking those kind of things. I’m happy with the verse being there loosely. On this page I see that Dr did some 5-senses research, couldn't find a simple documentable answer, DID find one hot clue, but lost it later, and then, in the midst of all Dr's 5-senses confusion (which often well characterizes behind-the-scenes academia) God gave him a revelation "You can trust the lost, "old piece of literature" and the 12 year old shame deal." The next sentence is "This explains why Jesus could not communicate with the people in His own hometown." I'm willing to accept this revelation, whether or not it's documentable in a way that satisfies other 5-senses researchers. I accept this and move on... with more reading, because I've come back... to PFAL. [This message was edited by Mike on January 16, 2003 at 17:00.]

Ok, Mike brought the pretzels. Who brought the beer? Mike, you don't know what time of year Luke 2:42 takes place? Honest? Really? Are you literate? Can you show the Bible just a FRACTION of the devotion you're showing PFAL? Luke 2:42 takes place during Passover. It says so, right there in the context. Remember how PFAL taught us that in order to understand the BIBLE, we have to read VERSES in their context. Do you remember that in PFAL? It's about how to read the Bible you reject. I ask you for proof that Wierwille is right, and you SPECULATE that God must have told him to trust an "old piece of literature" that none of us gets to see or read? HOGWASH, sir. Do not pass Go, Do not collect 1/10 of my income. I told you, if you don't have an answer, don't write. This drivel you've provided is not an answer. By the way, didn't I specifically say you can't quote the PFAL book as proof? It's the only thing you quoted as proof. That's rich. The proof that Wierwille is right is that in other parts of the PFAL book he talks about related things. HUH? Your reply is logically, practically, scripturally and rationally flawed.

WordWolf · January 29, 2009

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.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>You guys are trying to get me to re-enter the suspicion stage and you just can’t seem to hear me when I say “Been there done that.”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, we're not trying to get you to re-enter the suspicion stage. We are trying to get you to explain how you got out of it. You've finally provided an answer. Abject denial. That's very nice. I'll take a pass. Look, I won't say that PFAL lacks any value. That's not the point. If you lean on it and it helps you, more power to you, man. But it doesn't have to be the perfect Word of a perfect God in order to have that effect! The FACT that there are ACTUAL ERRORS in PFAL, that those errors are both small and great, should convince you that it fails to meet its own definition of what it means to be God-breathed. So either its definition was wrong (in which case the PFAL book is in error) or it's not God-breathed (in which case PFAL is in error). The third option is that it really is error free. But if you're going to make that case, your answer has to be better than "Join me in my denial. We all float here." That's the bottom line.

Mark Clarke · January 30, 2009

Thanks, WordWolf, for posting those quotes.

Let's look at the print record, NOT for proof of PFAL correctness, but to see more clearly the stated charge. This brings us back to page 57 of the PFAL book, where Dr writes:
****************************************************************

Luke 2 contains one verse of Scripture that for many years I was not able to understand.

Luke 2:42: "And when he [Jesus] was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast."

I knew that according to Jewish law, a boy became a man, going through Bar Mitzvah, when he was thirteen. But Jesus was taken to the temple when He was twelve. I could not understand it so I considered that there might be a mistake in the text. I looked in every critical Greek text that I could find and checked every other source I could think of; but I never found Jesus to be thirteen when He went to the synagogue. Every text concurred on the age of twelve. Finally I came across an old piece of literature which explained that according to ancient Judean law when a boy was conceived illegitimately, this child was brought to the temple at the age of twelve instead of thirteen.

This explains why Jesus could not communicate with the people in His own hometown. They thought that a child conceived illegitimately certainly could not have great knowledge or do wonderful works. They were offended by Him, would not listen to hear enough to believe when He spoke, and thus suffered from apistia, unbelief.

*****************************PFAL p.57************

This illustrates a foundational error that many, not just VPW, make in dealing with the Bible. They start with an assumption, and then try to fit it with the Scriptures. When it doesn't fit, they'll try anything to make it fit rather than considering that their primary assumption was false.

The primary assumption was that Jesus was taken to the Temple for his Bar Mitzvah. The Bible never mentions that. In the summary article about these Actual Errors, under #10 (which deals with this question), it says that somebody in the discussion claimed that, "In the PFAL book, Wierwille never directly states that Jesus went to Jerusalem to undergo a bar-mitzvah ceremony. He only states that illegitimate children were considered men at the age of 12 instead of 13." Yet here we see in Mike's quote above, that he did in fact state it.

It also says that, "The bar-mitzvah ceremony originated in the Middle Ages, so could not have been carried out in Jesus' time. Nonetheless, it is possible and likely that there was some recognition of a 'coming of age' at age 12 or 13." But any coming of age ceremony is beside the point. The Bible passage in question specifically says:

Luke 2:

41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year

at the feast of the passover

.

42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem

after the custom of the feast

.

43 And when they had

fulfilled the days

, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

Had VP simply allowed the Bible to speak for itself rather than injecting his assumption about the Bar Mitzvah, there would have been no question, nothing for him to puzzle about for years, and no reason to cite a missing document about how they treated illegitimate children at the time. Granted, the point VP was making was about how they didn't believe in Jesus because they looked at his circumstances. And that may be true, but the whole thing about going to Jerusalem when he was 12 had nothing to do with that.

So now we're expected to believe that God Almighty gave VP revelation which leads him to misinterpret and contradict clear Scripture in order to make his point? This would go against the command to "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God." It would also go against VP's own standards. He himself said to test things against the Scriptures to see if they line up. He taught some valid principles, but unfortunately did not utilize them himself in many cases.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Mark Clarke

Ham · January 31, 2009

still waiting.. *yawns*

what about the genealogy?

the text says one thing.. and EVERY STINKING publication of der victoid's "works" said another..

I'm trying to be a good host here.. but the coffee is starting to look moldy..

maybe a couple shots of Drambuie will kill the mold..

:biglaugh:

Ham · February 1, 2009

Really.. it's so simple a Squirrel can understand it..

The kings of Judah could trace their lineage back to David..

The kings of Israel did not share a common lineage. Jeroboam broke off with the northern kingdom.. he was not a decendant of David.. he was an Ephrathite..

Nadab his son reigns after him..

he reigns two years.. Baasha (a decendant of Issachar) conspires and kills Nadab.. and reigns.

he dies, Elah his son reigns in his stead..

then there is a military coup.. Zimri slays him.

Zimri reigns in his stead for only seven days..

Omri, another general off on an expedition, is installed by those in the "camp" as king, they retaliate and slay Zimri..

civil war ensues.. Omri, head of one party, and Tibni, head of the other.. Omri wins, and he reigns.. he dies later..

and Ahab the son of Omri reigns.

so at least to Ahab, we see only ONE king that was of the lineage of Jeroboam. After Nadab, generally it was one military coup after another.

The kings of Israel were hardly of the lineage of Jeroboam..

looks pretty black and white to me..

"well, what difference does it make? whether they were sons of Jeroboam, or not?"

it makes all the difference between a "God breathed" accurate word of der vicster, and a pile of error.. like he said, it's like a chain. Only as strong as it's weakest link..

waysider · February 1, 2009

Only a squirrel can appreciate the true "nuttiness" of it all.

Mark Clarke · February 1, 2009

Ham,

Sorry, I seem to have lost where you said VPW's error about the genealogy was (this thread has been around so long it's growing things on it.) Could you give a quick recap?

waysider · February 1, 2009

Mark

Ham made those references on posts # 678 & 680.

Ham · February 1, 2009

It was the little orange book, studies in abundant living vol. III. The vicster claimed that the kings of israel were of the line of Jeroboam..

he also claimed that the caananites were decendants of Cain..

the canaanites the children of Israel married were decendents of ABRAHAM.. Abraham was a decendent of Noah, Noah a decendent of Seth. Not Cain.

There were some Ishmaelites as well I think.. but they likewise were decendants of Abraham..

Ham · February 1, 2009

I saw Mike come back.. and remembered this little issue was never answered.. thought I'd bring it back to the top.

Still.. nothing. I'm probably a "heretic" who being twice "confronted" with the supposed facts of the vicster's "goodness", and having failed to comply, am supposed to be "rejected" or something..

or maybe he considers these "unlearned questions" or something..

or maybe it's just a "sin" to read sections of the bible not referred to by "his holiness" in the sacred writings.. or look consider material from other authors..

dmiller · February 1, 2009

Ham --- Mike has problems when confronted with facts. Especially facts that come from the *holy writ* of pfal. :)

Mark Clarke · February 1, 2009

Mark
Ham made those references on posts # 678 & 680.

Thanks. They're on page 34, if anybody wants to look at them.

I found Where VP says, "When Israel disobeyed and married Cain's progeny, they brought disaster to themselves." (Vol. III, pg. 77). And yes, Cain's descendants were wiped out in the flood.

I also found where he says, "Ahab, Jeroboam's son..." (Vol. III, pg.113), as well as calling Jeroboam Ahab's father on pg. 114. And indeed, Jeroboam was Omri's son, not Jeroboam.

It was the little orange book, studies in abundant living vol. III. The vicster claimed that the kings of israel were of the line of Jeroboam..
he also claimed that the caananites were decendants of Cain..

the canaanites the children of Israel married were decendents of ABRAHAM.. Abraham was a decendent of Noah, Noah a decendent of Seth. Not Cain.

There were some Ishmaelites as well I think.. but they likewise were decendants of Abraham..

What pages are these claims on? I didn't see them on the pages where the above ones were.

Was he possibly referring to the fact that the kings of the northern kingdom, Israel, succeeded each other on the throne? This doesn't mean they were of the "line" of Jeroboam, of course. They are also said to have followed the "ways" of Jeroboam, which still isn't the same thing.

Where is the reference to Cain and the Canaanites? (Wasn't that a 50's vocal group?)

Also, do you have any idea if these things were corrected in later editions or anything?

Edited February 1, 2009 by Mark Clarke

Ham · February 1, 2009

The Israelites marrying the offspring of Cain is on page 77. The other reference, I think it was in the sons of God/adpotion and birth section.. can't look it up now, I don't have the book anymore. The only book I have left out of herr vey's bookstore is a Lamsa bible.. oh, a couple greek books.

Also, do you have any idea if these things were corrected in later editions or anything?

I had the newest versions.. no, they were never corrected..

waysider · February 1, 2009

Here's another:

Vol.III, page 76

"Because Cain was born of the devil's seed he was accursed of God and his offering could not be accepted. Genesis 4 tells of Cain's treatment."

This is private interpretation on VPW's part.

Here is what it actually says in Genesis 4 :8-12.

And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and slew him.

And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

And He said, What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from my hand.

When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

**********************************************

Nowhere in Genesis 4 does it say that Cain was "born of the devil's seed".

edit:

(Or that it was for this reason that he was accursed of God)

Edited February 1, 2009 by waysider

waysider · February 1, 2009

There are actually two separate aspects to this.

First, you have a doctrinal aspect.

Is it really possible for a person to be born of the "wrong seed" and is this what Genesis 3: 15, as well as I John3:9-12, is referencing? That aspect would best be considered in the doctrinal forum, in my opinion.

Then there is the actual aspect.

Nowhere in Genesis 4 does it ever say that the reason God cursed Cain was because he was born of "the devil's seed".

Yet, Wierwille, in dealing with the account in Genesis 4, makes this proclamation on page 76 of Vol. III.

"Because Cain was born of the devil's seed he was accursed of God and his offering could not be accepted.

Regardless of one's theological beliefs, it is clearly an inaccurate rendering of what is written.

Edited February 1, 2009 by waysider

Mark Clarke · February 2, 2009

There are actually two separate aspects to this.
First, you have a doctrinal aspect.

Is it really possible for a person to be born of the "wrong seed" and is this what Genesis 3: 15, as well as I John3:9-12, is referencing? That aspect would best be considered in the doctrinal forum, in my opinion.

Then there is the actual aspect.

Nowhere in Genesis 4 does it ever say that the reason God cursed Cain was because he was born of "the devil's seed".

Yet, Wierwille, in dealing with the account in Genesis 4, makes this proclamation on page 76 of Vol. III.

"Because Cain was born of the devil's seed he was accursed of God and his offering could not be accepted.

Regardless of one's theological beliefs, it is clearly an inaccurate rendering of what is written.

I guess it comes down to how you define what "of that wicked one" means in I John 3:12. VPW taught that it implied he was born of the devil's seed. A debatable doctrinal issue, for sure. But whether this is one of those "errors of demonstrable fact" like the genealogy errors or throughly/thoroughly, dechomai/lambano, holy spirit in/upon, could be debated, especially by those who believe PFAL has no errors.

waysider · September 5, 2009

Actual error:

Page 6, PFAL

"A fountain has an unlimited supply of water."

Most fountains I have seen simply recycle the same supply of water.

Even a natural fountain is limited by the aquifer which supplies it.

Simply stated, a fountain is limited by the source that supplies it.

Perhaps the meaning has something to do with purity or refreshing qualities or something else. I don't know.

I find it hard to accept, though, that the meaning is focused on limitlessness since that is one quality that a fountain does not possess. Why would God compare himself to something that is limited in order to express His limitlessness?

This is simply private interpretation on VPW's part.

Not knowing the true meaning of the scripture that contains the fountain reference, Wierwille assigned an erroneous meaning to it in order to suit his agenda.

Edited September 5, 2009 by waysider

Ham · September 5, 2009

hmm. You convince me OK.. but what about the Sowers?

:biglaugh:

His "holiness's (?)" words are carved in stone, dontcha know..

Edited September 5, 2009 by Ham

waterbuffalo · September 5, 2009

Errors in PFAL? There are so many I could not catalog them.

On the other hand, a lot of his information, advice about living, came for the AA book.

Seriously.

"His" definition for humble is just one of them.

waysider · September 5, 2009

Errors in PFAL? There are so many I could not catalog them.

On the other hand, a lot of his information, advice about living, came for the AA book.

Seriously.

"His" definition for humble is just one of them.

How ironic!

It might be interesting to examine this more closely in a separate discussion.

Edited September 5, 2009 by waysider

Bishop · September 13, 2009

Really, the discrepancies in PFAL could have been caused by errors that crept into the texts, or into the lexicons. Perhaps even the laws of logic have been corrupted. I bet a catholic discovered them . . . . .

Bolshevik · September 13, 2009

Really, the discrepancies in PFAL could have been caused by errors that crept into the texts, or into the lexicons. Perhaps even the laws of logic have been corrupted. I bet a catholic discovered them . . . . .

discovered what? do you have an example?

waysider · September 13, 2009

"Crept" in?

No, I would say "smuggled" might be a better descriptor.

Wierwille copied Leonard, Stiles, Bullinger, etc., line by line and word for word in so many places, "crept" can hardly describe it. Problem is, he even copied things he didn't fully understand and, in so doing, missed the points the original authors were trying to convey.

The whole thing was an elaborate scam and we were the hapless marks.

Actual Errors in PFAL

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Raf

Raf

Larry P2

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Announcements