The Bible: gods word or mans

by freemindfade 5 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  freemindfade

  So I was laying on my bed and I saw on a box a little orange hard cover book. The bible gods word or man's. It has my name in it and the release date when I got it at a convention when I was 10 (1989).

  I studied the book probably when I was 14 which led up to my eventual baptism. Out of curiosity I picked it up and flipped through it. Looking at just one chapter I noticed they actually included some great criticism about the OT. still not much. And the answer to the criticism?... "it's speculative and tentative" what the hell! How did I ever buy this crap. Part of me wants to go through this book and respond to each chapter with real damming evidence that isn't subject to "speculation". Their are volumes on info on how the bible is a crock and they devote a few paragraphs in one chapter to one critic of the OT. Idiotic.

  Anyone interested in a project like this? I would love the shred this book with evidence not stupidity like they use.
• 

  Witness My Fury

  You would probably be better off doing it on the current set of cult recruitment propaganda whatever that might be these days....
• 

  Doug Mason

  Some time ago, I prepared a study on one chapter of that book. It includes an analysis of that book's structure.

  http://www.jwstudies.com/Critique_of_GM_on_Daniel_9.pdf

  Doug
  
• 

  Finkelstein

  Man's of course but it takes some in depth understanding of why those words were written and by whom.

  What was their inherent intent in relation to their own particular god and their beliefs system ?

  Studying ancient mythology can answer most of these questions.
• 

  Vidiot

  Wanna hear something funny?

  I was in my early teens when JWs first went through this publication at the Book Study, and in the years following, the things I remembered the most about it weren't the parts that attempted to bolster the claims of the Bible's divine origin, but the ones that detailed the criticisms of the Bible's said origin, and attempted to discredit or refute them.

  The weird thing was, even as we studied that book for the very first time, those arguments against the Bible's alleged divine origin seemed compelling and plausible to me, whilst the arguments supporting the Bible's divinity seemed - in comparison - weak and lacking in foundation.

  I could never figure out why the WTS would ever detail those arguments (even in heavily biased form); I figured if I found them compelling, who else might?
• 

  freemindfade

  They'd never make this book today, it tells on them way too much. With all the access we have to independent research, if they put such specific criticisms in a publication now it would open flood gates of TTATT.