by hamilcarr 35 Replies latest watchtower bible
3) a response from Narkissos, complete with reference to a 14th century Afghan poet, that I don't understand no matter how many times I read it.
The only result I get when I type "Afghan poet" in the search engine is a comment you made on an Emily Dickinson thread.
The only result I get when I type "Afghan poet" in the search engine is a comment you made on an Emily Dickinson thread.
See the second page of this thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/members/adult/89948/1/base-appeal-for-attention-and-validation
I got the century wrong.
(I am still a Jehovah's Witness)
An unbelieving Jehovah's Witness. How cute!
See:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/136548/1/Atheists-for-Jehovah
If the account of the creation was written from a human perspective, it could
very well be that the man writing had a vision from the earth of what creation
looked like from the earth and that the cloud mass obscured his vision of the
already-existing stars and sun and moon (the heavens and earth that already
were formed before the 6 days started).
But going with that theory, once there was day and night visible in the vision,
then the writer would see a day end or begin. Creation had to take place in
just a few earth-days for the thing to be written by a human perspective.
I know, I know- Jehovah caused the writer to write that "on the third day"
kind of stuff into the book. The whole thing was from a human perspective but
inspired to include God's hidden timetable for Armageddon in 1914, 1925, 1975,
the 20th century, the future. Because by the time of Moses, wheels were
already in motion to bring about the salvation of mankind, JW's only.
Okay, then the creatures of the earth were all created on a single day. Dinosaurs
were walking around and must have been destroyed by the flood. Funny- they
were not mentioned from the human perspective. Carbon dating is all off because
of the water canopy.
If all this stuff is really so, you would think that God would recognize that Mankind is
ready to know the truth, and he would commission or "anoint" people to proclaim the
truth, maybe write in down in some magazine and deliver it all over the world. Oh,
wait a minute- He did that. nevermind.
See the second page of this thread:
Well, that looks like an excellent thread. I was just ready to submit (awaits strong reproof for awakening old memories) until I saw it was locked. Damn!
See:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/136548/1/Atheists-for-Jehovah
Exciting topic! I see you met a lot of resistance with your idea. What do you think is so appealing about the Jehovah figure?
Those old Hebrews blamed a bunch of stuff on Jehovah. Jehovah was misunderstood.
Whenever he would enlighten someone, it turned into a game of Chinese Whispers and by the time it got written down it was so off. Words, *sigh* just symbols. So he sent down his best PR agent to clarify what he meant, and look what happened. Jehovah never gets a break from us louts.
BTS
The bible was edited together by a lot of different priest over time who either didnt read what the others
priest wrote or didnt bother to make it coherent.
The priest threw a bunch of myths about creations together that primitive man accepted.
But its not going down so well today.
Genesis wasn't written by Moses thats the first lie.
How could he say he was the meekest, humblest of men and how could he write of his death.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/6111/pneumatikos/wiseman.htm
hamilcarr, sorry I deleted my post earlier. I thought you wanted a discussion of a philosophical stance on the human perspective of that contradition (but then decided that maybe my flash of inspiration was off beam. I've dipped a toe into philosophy and Kant came to mind with his a posteriori and a priori concepts. His synthetic a priori seems to suggest a way of seeing how humans can sometimes see things from "God's" perspective. Whereas the a posteriori concept suggests a way of seeing strictly from a human experiential perspective.
Of course, it was written from a human perspective. The universe looked a lot different to story tellers three thousand years ago than it does to scientists today. The problem comes with reconciling that difference in the minds of believers today.
The cognitive dissonance produces some interesting notions of "what the writer really meant." The passage is quite easy to understand if one doesn't have to make it "truth." Once I realized that the writer actually meant what he wrote, that it didn't have to mean something else, I felt quite relieved.
No, it didn't answer the ultimate questions of life, the universe, and everything. However, I'm satisfied more with unanswered questions than questionable answers.
Dave
