He started this thread at 3:30 a.m in the morning west coast (US) time. He has been gone since page 6, my guess this person is in Eurpoe asleep.
Jehovah's Witness here.
by nimzo 177 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Gopher
jo32,
Sorry to hear of the tragedy with your friend.
That really deserves its own thread, it could kind of get buried in here.
You've been a Witness 4 years now? Was this friend also a Witness? Are the twins okay?
-
dust
nimzo wrote:
Translating to "Word was God" actually destroys the Greek Grammar.
nimzo, you are obviously one who knows your stuff. As I finally get to see an expert here, I would like to make use of this opportunity to ask you about something that I do not understand. I am sure you can help.
In John 1:1 "theos" is translated to "a god" in the NWT, as there is no article in the Greek text. The Watchtower Society states the same as you: Translating to "God" would destroy the Greek grammar.
Then why does the NWT translate John 1:6 and 1:12 to "God" even though the Greek text in the Kingdom Interlinear quite obviously does not have an article there? I suppose that either John or the NW translators did not know Greek grammar: one of them is inconsistent, but who?
Well, I read that you left. You'll probably not read this anyway. -
streets76
Let this be the last word: "The End of Faith" --Sam Harris
-
Kenneson
So, you're a Jehovah's Witness. That isn't what Jesus asked you to be. He wants you to be HIS witness. Acts. 1:8
-
mavie
I'm about to leave, so I'll just say this. You guys should try to do research on your own, without the help of anti-jws website or information. Theres two sites of the story, and you cannot believe one side without hearing the other side. Wow, if only if I could show you my collection of WTs articles and all the misquoted information I found. Yikes! :D
Misquotes?
An easy example:
Then, according to Dawkins' description, "a particularly
remarkable molecule was formed by accident"-- a molecule
that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting
that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he
maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar
molecules clustered together, and then, again by an
exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective
barrier or other protein molecules around themselves as a
membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell
generated itself.
At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins'
comment in the preface to his book: "This book should be
read almost as though it were science fiction." [_Life-- How
did it get here? By evolution or by creation?_ p. 39,
paragraphs 4-5]
That preface reads:
This book should be read as though it were science fiction.
It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not
science fiction: it is science. Cliche or not, "stranger
than fiction" expresses exactly how I feel about the truth.
We are survival machines-- robot vehicles blindly programmed
to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a
truth which still fills me with astonishment. [Dawkins, _The
Selfish Gene_, p.ix]
And of course Dawkins doesn't just "maintain that [the
appearance of the remarkable molecule] must have happened."
The JW book refers to the very page this discussion is on:
This may seem a very unlikely sort of accident to happen.
So it was. It was exceedingly improbable. In the lifetime
of a man, things which are that improbable can be treated for
practical purposes as impossible. That is why you will never
win a big prize on the football pools. But in our human
estimates of what is probable and what is not, we are not
used to dealing in hundreds of millions of years. If you
filled in pools coupons every week for a hundred million
years you would very likely win several jackpots. [Dawkins,
p. 16]
I found it dishonest in the extreme to quote out of context in
this way. It's a very transparent attempt to manipulate their
readers into thinking that Dawkins "knows" he's being
unrealistic & has no good arguments to make in favor of his
position. The JWs, though they read Dawkins' argument, make
no attempt to refute it. Instead, through selective quoting,
they pretend it doesn't exist. On page 44 of their book
(paragraphs 18 & 19 of the same chapter), they make the tired
old improbability argument. -
-
blueviceroy
Refuting ignorance is a waste of time.
A stubborn fool with a "belief of the truth " can in no way be swayed by logic or reason as these are the domains of "satan and his minions"
A wise man will investigate the truth of any matter and form an opinion based on all points of and all data available., this factual methodoligy is also apparently the domain of before mentioned "tempter"
A true believer will have to admit we are gifted with reason in order to advance truth , not a MANS understanding of truth , but the WAY to the truth each must find.
The ultimate truth can not be conceptualized or possessed in any manner niether can it be given to another individual , it's location can only be described as ,an intent
The intent does not include bias, intolerance , hatred, exclusivism, isolationism, neccessary belief in any doctrin or practice of any particular methodoligy or technique, it isn't inclusive of any selfish desire
It does however contain therein LOVE in abundance , and all the aspects of love like compassion , understanding , knowledge ,nurture . tolerance , etc. etc.
So with that in mind, perhaps self inquiry as to what your purpose in opposing a point of view is ,may in order