JW Assumptions in their Literature (page 2)

MidwichCuckoo

Good point Tristram.....

It is possible that

......Lot was the first recorded pimp.

XBEHERE

Tristram thanks for the catch, too many to keep up with. This is just one paragraph from a WT. Blondie's review is full of them when she does the study articles.

THis is an interesting thread as it epitomises the silliness of the interpretive nature of the FDS and so exposing the uselessness of their doctrines.

I remember their literature littered with conditional statements when they were trying to defend difficult biblical verses or happenings within their own organisation.

Once you surrender your intelligence and replace it with hocus pocus your screwed.

Leolaia

It is perfectly fine in biblical exegesis to list the different logical possibilities. What the Society fails to do is to then examine each possibility and discuss how well the evidence supports each possibility, e.g. which one is more probable than the others. The Society is content to just mention other possibilities....like a defense attorney trying to create reasonable doubt by mentioning other alternate theories to the prosecution's case, leaving it to the jury to decide which theory best accounts for the facts. Of course, the Society does not leave the question for the reader to decide or figure out which possibility is right, it always expects the reader to take its own side of the question, whenever it weighs in on a biblical matter, and not to do any real independent or critical thinking.

XBEHERE

Leolaia I agree with what you are saying, what about even more critical doctrines that are a matter of llife or death (if you profess to be a christian). For example the scripture in John 20:28,29... what is the WTS understanding of this:

***

w92 1/15 p. 23 What Do the Scriptures Say About "the Divinity of Christ"? ***

Addressing the resurrected Jesus, the apostle Thomas exclaimed: "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28) This and other accounts were "written down that [we] may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God." And Thomas was not contradicting Jesus, who had sent His disciples the message: "I am ascending to . . . my God and your God." (John 20:17, 30, 31) So Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God. Thomas may have addressed Jesus as "my God" in the sense of Christ’s being "a god," though not "the only true God." (John 1:1; 17:1-3) Or by saying "my God," Thomas may have been acknowledging Jesus as God’s Spokesman and Representative, even as others addressed an angelic messenger as though he were Jehovah.—Compare Genesis 18:1-5, 22-33; 31:11-13; 32:24-30; Judges 2:1-5; 6:11-15; 13:20-22.

Now the jury is still out to me on the whole Jesus is god thing but look at the reasoning.. or lack of I should say in trying to explain this verse. I mean come on... Thomas may have addressed.. Thomas may have been acknowledging.. So they do this even with things that are VERY important. Those bastages!

Spectrum

XBEHERE
"Thomas may have addressed.. Thomas may have been acknowledging.. "

But if the FDS are Gods channel then why don't they know for a fact, why are they guessing?
How many maybes and may haves did Jesus use?

Leolaia,

I don't agree with you. Because they claim to have the Truth and so they should know. The problem is they don't know cos they don't have the Truth.

Terry

Truth of the matter is women were merely considered property by men.

JW's today aren't far removed from that point of view.

Maybe the Watchtower would do well to consider that!

T.

Dune

What the WTBS says // What Witnesses See

May // Is

Probably // Will be

Could Possibily // Certainly

JW Assumptions in their Literature

Share this