News Release: Special Awake! Campaign (page 4)

Nathan Natas

WOW!

A SPECIAL Awake! Campaign!

Nothing like that has ever happened before, has it?

I'll bet Armageddon is REALLY REALLY close now!

REALLY REALLY REALLY close!

Awakened07

Since I killed the first thread with my boring comments, I thought I'd kill this one as well by reposting them (with minor alterations):

I "agree" with them:
"when it comes to scientific matters, the Bible is noteworthy not only for what it says but also for what it does not say."
-This is The Word of God we're talking about. For several hundreds or thousands of years, these texts apparently were the only communication we got directly from Him. As such, shouldn't they include much more detailed and accurate explanations of the world around us? Why not more fully explain why people get sick and why they should stay clean (bacteria and virus), explain a few things about the solar system and the universe and how it came to be, explain in more accurate detail the various weather phenomena (and how they are not directly caused by God), explain what the dinosaurs were, in case we found their bones one day; educate mankind about what's going on around them? I think this would be a rather obvious job for a God (as it is often the 'job' of parents to educate their children). -It may seem like the Bible would then have been several hundred pages longer than it is today, but I don't think that would necessarily be the case. It wouldn't have to be several bound volumes on science, but a little more detailed (and accurate) than today?
The point made about that - at least by the WBTS - is that the simple peasant/desert people of that day wouldn't have been able to understand detailed explanations (this argument is used in the Creation book). Why is that? I am - for this argument - assuming the Bible is correct, and if so, humans were directly created only a couple of thousand years earlier, and the first few humans were directly educated by God. In other words, these people were no more stupid than we are today - quite the contrary should be the case, with all the degeneration since the fall of Man. Did they know less than we do about the universe? Yes. But was that because they were stupid? No, they would easily have been able to understand things that an eight grader can learn today (to say the least). After all, they were 'trusted' to understand all manner of spiritual concepts, like angels, talking animals (they didn't have the explanation that this was Satan yet, and even if they did, it wouldn't make the topic easier), angels coming down to Earth and taking human wives, etc. etc. Were they so simple minded that they couldn't have understood the concept of God creating such small creatures that the human eye couldn't see them (bacteria, virus)? The notion of this 'small life' may have been ridiculed for a while over the centuries, but would have been vindicated by today. Same with the weather, solar system, galaxies, dino bones, etc. etc. If an eight grader of today can understand it, the grown-ups of that time should have been able to as well.
If we do give a point to the Bible writers for writing that the Earth hangs on nothing and has the shape of a circle (although as VM44 explained above, these are not necessarily valid points), can it be said that this knowledge must have had a divine origin? The sun and moon have been hanging there looking like circles for all the time that humans have been here. It wouldn't be such a huge leap of imagination to conclude that the Earth may be 'circular' and "hanging on nothing" as well. In fact, in going up to a tall mountain or looking out over the ocean from a high vantage point, you might even conclude that the Earth might be (almost) spherical. This may be a moot point though, as it seems more likely they saw Earth as being a circular disc.
As for the hygiene rules of the Israelites: In the mid-1800s, before germs were thought to be the cause of disease and death, Ignaz Semmelweis was working in a hospital with a high mortality rate among pregnant women due to puerperal fever, and he discovered that the ward where the doctors and medical students weren't examining the women had a much lower mortality and disease rate than the ward where doctors and medical students would examine the women. He noticed that the midwives working in the other ward with a low mortality rate were required to have visibly clean hands, while the doctors and students were not, and that the doctors and medical students would go directly from examining dead bodies, to examining the pregnant women. He therefore 'forced' the doctors and students to wash their hands in an effective solution over a period of time, and after a while the death rate of the two wards were pretty much level. Again - he didn't know what caused it all, but he came to this conclusion nevertheless, without God's intervention. The same kind of deductive scenario may have happened in biblical times, or for that matter, in the thousands upon thousands of years prior to it, if we step out of the Bible's time frame.
That the universe seems to have had a beginning may raise a few questions, but how come God is the automatic, full stop answer? Why does it stop there? A highly advanced, complicated, powerful and intricate life form wouldn't need an explanation, while a highly intricate universe would?
It doesn't seem to me like the Bible contains anything (physical) we as humans couldn't have concluded by ourselves by examining the things we see from our earthly vantage point.

Page 3:
It starts off with a nice sentiment; don't believe or accept anything you hear, check sources, don't misplace your trust. It seems very open and inviting; 'take it or leave it'.
It promises that the rest of the article will present compelling evidence that the Bible is worthy of our trust.
Page 4:
Argues that the Bible is a special book because it has: Been printed and distributed in such large quantities, Was halfway "done" by the time of Confucius and Siddhartha Gautama, Has influenced arts and music, Has survived attempts to destroy it.
Yes, the Bible is a special book, there's no doubt about it, both in the way it came about (as we know it today) and in how large a distribution it has had. However, when the various ecumenical councils had decided what books should and shouldn't go into the Bible and thereafter made Christianity the state religion of the Roman empire, it was the start of a process that had to result in a large distribution of the book. Over the years, some people - even clergy - opposed the idea that common people should read the Bible, and therefore tried to destroy it, but since it was now an integral part of many people's beliefs, some were also willing to die to defend it. By our time, it has become widespread also because of the Christian 'duty' to spread the word, also in foreign territories. Today, I would guess every Christian (or ex-Christian) on the planet has at least one Bible (I personally have three). Both the large distribution and the persecution of it were part of a natural chain of events.
As for being half way 'done' by the time other influential religious characters and philosophers emerged, yes, the Bible's oldest books are old, however there are older religious texts and inscriptions than the oldest texts of the Bible; some of them seem to have inspired some of what made it into those first biblical books (although a controversial subject). So I'm not sure what the point of mentioning this is, other than trying to show that the Bible - at least in part - is older, and therefore more trustworthy (?) than the later religions and philosophies. Which in that case is undermined by the above mentioned fact that the earliest biblical texts are preceded by many other religious texts (to be honest, Leolaia and Narcissos among others know much more about this than me).
As for influencing arts and music, this is quite natural - just like other gods and beliefs have influenced people's art and music. People feel moved by what they believe, and spend a great deal of their life pondering it. No wonder they would use it as an inspiration in their music and art. Sex and love has influenced a lot of music and art too...
Page 5:
No need to say much here: The Bible might be 100% accurate when it comes to historical figures - it doesn't really matter. It is surely disputed by many, but my point is that even if the Bible is 100% accurate when it comes to naming places and people, it's a rather moot point. This aspect should of course also be carefully examined, but an old book being accurate about it's history wouldn't be anything special in itself. What is special, are all the supernatural occurrences the Bible is citing. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If I wrote a book about the first world war, and all the historic details were correct, it wouldn't mean much if I also - in all seriousness - told the story of how my grandfather was able to defeat many enemies because he had the ability to instantly move from one location to another, could take a bullet to his chest with no injury, could fly, etc. All the historic accuracy in my book wouldn't 'prove' that my grandfather had these superhuman abilities. It would only prove that I knew and/or had researched recent history.
Page 7:
'Internal harmony'. Books could be - and have been - written on this subject. There are whole websites dedicated to the disharmony and contradictions in the Bible. Sure - some of it I'll admit comes from not understanding or researching the Bible enough, but not all of it can be explained away. Apologetic explanations are often centered around the idea that the Bible is the word of God, and therefore has to be correct, resulting in an explanation that is circular logic.
As for the 'Reasonable differences' that are cited in the article as "proof" of the unintentional harmony of Bible writers (??); Aren't these texts supposed to be inspired, in a way no other texts have been since? One could wonder what the point of eye witnesses would be in the first place when they are all inspired anyway. If God is "whispering in their ear" as they write, why are there even seemingly discrepancies? Purple or scarlet? Why didn't God 'inspire' one of them to get it right? (this is of course only one rather insignificant example). Is the Bible selectively inspired? Or are - as is written - all the scriptures given by inspiration of God? (2 Timothy 3:16 , 1 Thessalonians 2:13) If we are to conclude that in some select parts, the Bible writers were free to write down their own, sometimes flawed memories and thoughts, why are we then to assume that the same isn't the case with for instance Paul's letters?
Page 9:
Well, this is also a very controversial subject. One only has to mention 607BC and 1914AD to get the ball rolling when it comes to JWs, and to show how people's need for Bible passages to suit their already established doctrine will make them go very far in their interpretations. But prophecy in the Bible is also controversial in itself even if we look away from JWs. This can be seen simply by going to the Wikipedia article about biblical prophecy. It is such a controversial subject that there's almost a war going on in the Talk page. This is often the case when people's beliefs are being challenged. Many people think the biblical prophecies were written after the fact. Some prophecies could be said to not have come to pass, like the destruction and following desolation of Tyre (and who it was that caused it), as Leolaia mentioned. But as anything else, that 'problem' is attempted to be explained away by apologetics. The book of Daniel is thought by some to have been written around 165BC, and not in the 6th. century BC. Those who already believe in the God of the Bible, will of course hold to the belief that the texts were written as genuine prophecy that came accurately to pass, and that they were written down many decades before the prophecy was to be fulfilled, while those who don't believe in the biblical God will demand extra-biblical evidence that it happened that way. My take on it is again that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and since a biblical answer would be circular reasoning ("the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true"), it would have to be from an extra-biblical source (archaeological findings that confirm the texts were written before the fulfillment of the prophecy).
Atheists will put all this together with what they have already found to be true, and as they don't believe in God, they will also deny the possibility that divine prophecies can have come to pass. Theists (Bible based such) will also put it all together with what they have already found to be true, and so they are inclined to believe that the Bible's prophecies did come accurately to pass. Personally, I must admit I would have liked some extra-biblical evidence that these prophecies were written down before the fact, before I could believe it.

It's kind of fun to go read what people have written about the "amazing scientific accuracy of the Quran", too. They use the same sort of reasoning. "This word in the original languages can also mean [x], which is exactly what scientists say is true!" and all the same shtick.

Whoever makes that stuff up for the Bible, must do side work for the Quran-thumpers.

Dave

cultswatter

Wow the GB has such special insight.. Nothing on global warming or the imminent war with Iran. .oooooooh scarrrrry

Santisimo

It's funny how they decide to do this right at the start of the holiday shopping season - when wallets are fat and ripe with contribution money. Not for nothing, but I suspect that the WT doesn't even care if the public gives a dime for their filthy magazines. They're probably making fat profits just on the JWs who make 'donations' for this.

Black Sheep

I have just searched their website for this important Awake!.

Either they haven't got a very good search engine, or they have neglected to publish it where there is no chance of getting a donation for this 'free' information.

Cheers

Chris

cyberdyne systems 101

I was called on by a JW couple at the weekend. We chatted about the bible, and this was the featured magazine, which I took and read.

I brought up some things that I didnt agree with such as how did the animals got back to the different continents after the flood, to which i got a reply that maybe the earth was different back then, but they didnt know so would try to find out. Also I mentioned about the laws such as stoning sinful offspring, and how David was above the law. I think they said the laws were harsh in order for the nation to stand out, and that David had a get out of jail free card, the kingdom convenant. I think a lot of it was them talking to me, telling me how everything in the bible was good and so on, paradise (to which i said its not in there). In the end they excused themselves and thanked me for my time as i did them. Seemed like some nice people.

Well I read the Awake, and looking on as i was (I took the position of a typical householder - not ex JW), I thought it seems to sound reasonable and make sense. I then wanted to look at it from a critical point of view also. i soon realised that I had seen the begining of the indoctrination process, not the way I remembered the high control and loyalty to the society being paramount. I think that people could well be persuaded by these technique's, and maybe if i had not been brought up in it, perhaps i would have been interested and gone along with the 'proofs' given?

CS 101

dawg

Isn't Jesus geneology as listed in the Gospels and going all the way back to David different in each gospel that it is in fact listed? How is that accurate? Doesn't this at least raise questions as to the accuracy of the bible, yet it is one of the points listed by the fools in the GB as the reasons for accuracy?

News Release: Special Awake! Campaign