Actual Errors in PFAL

[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 you believe in "the law of believing" depends on your interpretation of certain words of Christ.

But some errors are concrete. They are objective. If I told you 2+2=5, you would be able to say I am wrong, flat out, and that there was no room for misinterpretation of that fact. I can't say, "well, it's just your interpretation that 2+2=4, but you're just not enlightened enough to know that it's really 5."

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.

[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, gullible women to abuse.

[Raf]

For the record, too many people get the credit for the above observations. I'll take credit for coming up with number 10 on my own, 12 years ago. Oh, wait, it's 2003. Make that 13 years ago.

For others who deserve credit: I'm sorry, I just don't recall. I KNOW Jerry Barrax is one. Chris Geer, John Lynn and too may others got to the Kingdom of God/Heaven observation LONG before I did. Wierwille corrected himself on a couple of them. Anyway, these are collected observations, FYI.

[Raf]

Oh, yes, Larry, I forgot:

Please feel free to post your own. But try to keep it objective. Knock out the emotion, lest you be accused of having feelings. :)-->

In PFAL, Wierwille wrote that all the women of the kingdom were technically the property of the king.

In truth, there is no such technicality in scripture, nor is there such a technicality in Jewish tradition. It is utterly made up.

[Goey]

Rafael,

I have seen the light!

quote:

---

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.

---

Rafael, remember, the translations come from corrupted remnants and are only approximations they cannot be relied upon. This is why God gave PFAL to VPW - to clear this up.

quote:

---

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?”

---

It may seem that way, but if God said it in PFAL then that is what I'll go with.

quote:

---

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.

---

This is five senses data. There must be another explanation. What keys have you applied?

quote:

---

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).

---

Words can change meanings over time. God chose to give these two words differing meanings and then reveal this in the RELIABLE revelation of PFAL.

quote:

---

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).

---

Again I must ask, what keys did you apply to PFAL? There is ALWAYS another explanation to APPARENT errors. If you tell me what keys you applied then that will save me some time.

quote:

---

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.

---

See my answer to Number 1

quote:

---

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).

---

In PFAL, God chose to expand HIS definition of Apostle beyond the meaningless definitions in your interlinear or lexicon. I'll go with God's definition in PFAL. You should too.

Etcetera, Etcetera, Etcetera

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Just joking. :)-->

Goey

Edited January 3, 2003 by Guest

[TheEvan]

I contend that Wierwille's ridiculous assertion that the Bible interprets "itself" is demonstrably wrong, IF the Bible is the standard, for Bible never breathes a WORD that it does anything remotely of the kind. It does NOT. Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to interpret the Word to us. He said so.

Nyah, nyah, nayh!

I'm I doing Okay on the rational unemotional approach, Raf?

[RottieGrrrl]

>

Well why can't more than one person bring light to their generation? Just because someone is of the same "generation" as me doesn't mean they're going to reach me.

Billy Graham might reach people in his geneartaion, but someone younger might bring it to somebody else younger. An ex druggie may reach other druggies but some really straight person may reach others.

BTW I really liked your Living Epistles link.

[George Aar]

Don't forget the pathetic error of placing the Council of Nicaea in FRANCE!

Geez Pete, Wierdwolf didn't even have much of the rudimentary knowledge of The Bible down very well, yet he had us believing he had some special deal with the Almighty to get the Secret Bible Decoder Ring.

Get over it Mikey. Wierwille was a cheap grifter, charlatan, conman, pick-a-name. The fact that we all bought into his line of B.S. so deeply is to our shame, not our benefit.

Are you this enthused about selling Amway as well?

Mental hygiene alert!

geo.

[Oakspear]

• The first four letters of the Hebrew alphabet are not alpha, beta, gamma, delta, but aleph, beth, gimel, daleth.

• Despite his claims that the "original" text has "God" as the first word, all available texts in the oldest known biblical language, Hebrew, say beredangh (in the beginning) barah (created) Elohim (God) ha-shamayim wa ha-eretz (the heavens and the earth)

Oakspear

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

Edited January 3, 2003 by Guest

[simonzelotes]

Rafael,regarding nos. 2 and 3 doesn't vpw say that the translators told him something to the effect that they know what he's teaching is true("for this purpose was I spared"}but if they translated it that way they couldn't sell any more Bibles? I think that was the part....

[Raf]

Actually, yes, he says that in the class.

Emotion aside, it's a ridiculous claim. The thought that a Bible version would not sell if someone came up with a controversial rendering of one particular verse is provably false, as the plethora of available Bible versions proves.

In addition, The Way's very own Aramaic Interlinear translates the relevant verses as questions. I think that is proof that not even the most devoted Wierwille fans on earth could back up his claim.

[suz]

Gee Raf your gonna start a riot in here!!

The mind police are gonna get ya.

If we do PFAL--lets also do the other BS we

bought, after PFAL lets play with the

Intermediate Class (or whatever they call

it) and on to the Adv Class.

Poor mind police will be calling their local

doc's for meds.

it could be fun.

Hey IF you take the class enough times,

and IF you had questions....you wouldn't

doubt the "Word" that was given to Heir Doc,

you would just believe it w/out question,

right???? (as I walk, eyes wide open

in the direction of the big top, saying,

"I do not doubt, I do not doubt...." lol

suz

Edited January 3, 2003 by Guest

[Zixar]

Goey: Not bad, but you could have earned another 10 extra credit points if you had also managed to work in the phrase "present truth." ;)-->

Rafael: There's also the old "blood in the sperm" error which I pointed out on the other thread.

[RottieGrrrl]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zixar:

Rafael: There's also the old "blood in the sperm" error which I pointed out on the other thread.

---

Zixar can you point me to that thread?

BTW I would LOVE someone to go through the intermediate class. I was never comfortable with the way the manifestaions were explained, or done.

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

[excathedra]

what killed that little boy ?

[Steve!]

It was a drunk driver. BTW, I'm joining DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers.

[Zixar]

RottieGrrl: It's in the "Part II: Jeepers Sherlock..." thread, but here's what I wrote again:

quote:

---

There is also the flat-out error in PFAL when VPW talks about Leviticus 17:11. Lev17:11 is the verse about "The life of the flesh is in the blood", and VPW says that it is the blood in the sperm that passes on the life from the father to the egg cell of the mother.

Since spermatozoa are the tiniest of all human cells, there is simply no room in a sperm cell for a blood cell of any type, red, white, or platelet. So much for Wierwillian infallibility...

Also, prior to the publishing of Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed, the Official Revelation™ of TWI with respect to the Star of Bethlehem was that it was the triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in Pisces in 7-6 B.C. Now, since the birthdate of Christ could not possibly change days, whenever it actually was, it could not possibly be a case of revelation changing as circumstances changed. So, either God lied to VPW when they were pushing the 7-6 BC story, or lied to him when they shifted to Ernest Martin's September 11, 3 BC date. I think I'll stick to believing in the infallibility of God, rather than bowing to victorpneustos.

---

[RottieGrrrl]

Zixar thank you for responding so quickly. This is something I will have to read into. I always thought this was one part that made sense.

[Pirate1974]

It wasn't God that killed that little boy.

It was V.P. Wierwille,

That whole story was a crock.

[Orange Cat]

The drapes were actually an orangish-pink which she got at a marked down price for obvious reasons.

Bar-mitzvahs were not invented until the middle-ages.

Orange Cat color>

[insurgent]

Zix,

Didn't one of lcm's classes report that blood never passes from the father? or was it the other way around?

Anyone remember which syllabus and I'll go look it up.

Suz, Rafael has done a great job going through the collaterals as well. It may be on his website or in the archives of the doctrinal section.

[Georgio Jessio]

as far as the intermediate class:

"If your tounge is 30 seconds long, your interpretation should be 30 seconds long"

Anyone who speaks two languages knows that some words are longer in one language than another. It would not be a *rule* that your tounge and interpretation are the same length. In fact the opposite is true.

example:

english: I like bakery bread

spainish: Yo me gusto el pan de la panaderia

This bothered me at the time but I was too meek to question anything.

I am throughly completly, completly complete. Glory!

[lindyhopper]

Zix and Rottie,

You probably know this but, the blood typis determined geneticaly. This takes both parents, not just the father VPW, LCM, or both taught that there was no transfer of blood between the mother and baby. Probably LCM making up for VPW's wrong teaching. Fact is, there is blood transfer form mom to baby in the early stages of developement before the fetus starts pumping it's own. This does cause some problems with the whole Jesus having perfect blood thing. Sorry,I didn't write the book.

Here's an advanced class one: Cancer is caused by devil spirits. BS!!!!!!!!

But, there have been many who have been healed by God from this... ie. radiation theropy.... God is light.... radiation is light .....it's all, waves, man.

catch the wave,dude.

Edited January 3, 2003 by Guest

[Zixar]

Insurgent: I don't know, I didn't stick around for LCM's classes past "Rise & Expansion".

Georgio: Exactly, that was a pure guess on their part, since German is longer than English, and Chinese shorter, the equal time thing was obvious and blatant guesswork.

[lindyhopper]

DId VPW really die from cancer? Where can I find that info? Is it still public.