Correction: " Whether Jesus died on a cross or stake is somewhat of a trivial issue"
Ezekiel 29:12 - Prophecy of the Desolation of Egypt for 40 years
by VM44 104 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
mrsjones5
If it was so trivial to the watchtower it wouldn't be an issue for them.
-
AnnOMaly
It did take a few hours putting that list together.
Yes, I can imagine it did! Much appreciated.
-
diamondiiz
There may have been one or more person(s) in the organization that lied to you but your experience doesn't implicate the organization as a whole. Not to mention, no one here that bashes the organization has identified a religious organization that meets their approval. The scope of many (not all) people's minds here is very narrow.
WTS deceives more than it outright lies but deception really isn't that different is it? Since you believe in the bible the Adam and Eve story shows that Satan deceived and yet is called a liar. So likewise wts deceives about it's past and takes quotes out of ccontext.
One example is when you read todays articles about 1914 and Russell. Your present understanding of 1914 is that 1914 is when Jesus returned invisibly, became reigning king, last days started and that the gentile times began. So when you read that Bible Students pointed to 1914 some 40 years prior, you assume that the 4 points mantioned above were what these BS preached. Without research you assume that BS seen the fulfillment of the prophesy that is said to have been fulfilled in 1914. And yet the reserch shows that BS preached a totally different version of dates and events with only gentile times being the only aspect of 1914 that was partially true to what their preached. So todays' wts articles totally deceive its readers about 1914 and wouldn't that be really classified as a lie.
With history same can be said about 607BC. History doesn't support it so wts tries to disprove overwhelming evidence by downplaying the evidence, taking quotes out of context and using JW "expert" sources of twisted logic that will support their bogus date. WTS will claim there is not enough artifacts found to show 586/7 to be true and yet they won't show any physical evidence to support their 607BC dogma. Astronomical evidence proves beyond a doubt the years when NB kings reigned and yet none of that evidence stops wts from keeping their bogus chronology. This type of denial of evidence, is not only applied to fall of Jerusalem but to other historical evidence.
In JW mind, the whole world is against you and everyone is under control of satan and thus any outside evidence disproving wts claims must be wrong. It's a CULT mentality that enslaves the followers from openly and freely discussing either the history or the bible on their own terms. The assumption that Jehovah is real is same as assuming that the bible is from Him. At present there is as much evidence that God (Jehovah or any other) is real as there is evidence of aliens.
Witnesses are some of the most narrow minded, uneducated, gullible folks around. So speaking of narrow minded people here, you're referring mostly to yourself and other pro-wts folks. It is wts followers who for most part cannot research facts that contradict their set of beliefs and those that are open minded and see the reality leave the cult or are stuck in the cult for fear of loosing their loved ones. Being stuck in the cult to have contact with the family members is truely sad.
-
Leolaia
Your example of Troy and the Iliad is really off the mark; it actually reveals how superior in quality the information we have about Amasis' reign. Do we have documents from ancient Troy itself from the time of the war? Do we have a year-by-year attestation of King Priam's reign in a various of sources? All we have is an epic poem put to writing over 400 years after the event. In contrast, we have a great quantity of records surviving from the time of Amasis himself, most of which are everyday sources. Historians know that these are of the highest quality sources that could exist. A person drawing up a contract in, say, the 24th year of Amasis has no intent of recording or representing "history"; the purpose is simply to draw up a legal document for pragmatic purposes in what was the "here and now". It will attest to the fact that the agreeing parties exist, that the situation they agree to exists, and it will record the date of the agreement. The particular historical question under consideration here is the most basic and fundamental imaginable: Did people continue to live in Egypt for the 40 years following Nebuchadnezzar's campaign? Did Amasis continue to rule in Egypt, was his reign interrupted? If the question were something more interesting like "Was Amasis a philo-Hellene?" then we'd be on slippier ground without unambiguous answers, but for something as utterly simple and basic as this, we have overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence. Document after document after document, all written by people living in Egypt during the reign of Amasis, testify to the same thing: Life continued as usual after Nebuchadnezzar's campaign. There was no mass exodus of Egyptians from the land, the cities were not destroyed, Amasis did not die early in his reign. We can follow the careers of certain individuals; we can see that the same people were living in the same location before Nebuchadnezzar's campaign and after Nebuchadnezzar's campaign. We can see that the Apis bull cult continued without interruption. We can see that people were leasing land, people were marrying, people were selling their livestock. We can see this continue from the time of Nebuchadnezzar all the way to the time of Cyrus' successor Cambyses. And we know that there wasn't a hiatus in the middle of Amasis' reign when it was put on hold, because the tombstones of people buried during his reign show that no such period of 40 years existed. Nor did people live into their 120s or 140s, while lying about the ages of the deceased on tombstones (while perfectly agreeing with each other). Even Amasis himself would have to live into his 120s or 130s if you were to add another 40 years to his life. Compare all this evidence to the bare fact that not a scintilla of evidence exists to suggest that such a tremendous disaster happened in Amasis' reign. Every indication we have refutes this notion roundly. In terms of burden of proof, the burden is certainly on the claimant who contends without evidence that an exeptionally unprecedented event happened.
It hasn't been my experience that Jehovah and visible organization lie to people. I noticed you posted articles like this one here:
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/jesus/the-facts-on-crucifixion-stauros-and-the-torture-stake.html
Whether Jesus died on a cross of stake is somewhat of a trivial issue. What is it that motivated you to participate in a campaign against Jehovah's Witnesses?A campaign against Jehovah's Witnesses? You do understand the difference between criticism of the merits of specific claims and personally opposing people? My motivation was to discover the truth about things that were claimed by the "visible organization", whether in terms of doctrine or its own history. And it was precisely the realization that the publications do "lie" (such as misquoting or misrepresenting the views of others, making claims that are simply false, etc.) that motivated me to reconsider whether the organization was seeking the truth. Yes, whether Jesus died on a cross or stake is a trivial issue. That's not the issue. The issue is the credibility and intellectual integrity of the organization in pushing claims and teachings that are not true. If the publications for instance say that Lucian supports their contention that stauros meant only "stake" when Lucian does the exact opposite (he specifically described the stauros as T-shaped), and if they say that Livy used crux to mean just "stake" when he nowhere was so specific, it does matter. It also matters that the Society made very misleading and dishonest claims for years that earthquakes were increasing since 1914. It matters when they quote scientists or Bible scholars totally out of context. It also matters that the 1914 doctrine is founded on a chronological impossibility, which they are fully cognisant of but which they have failed to correct. It matters that the "invisible presence" teaching is based on an error. Of course, none of these things matter to one who just takes what the organization says by faith. But it matters to one who has come to an understanding of the facts of the matter on these (and many other) areas.
It couldn't be because the Bible is out of sync with secular history because all Christian religions are to some extent Bible based.
This doesn't even make sense. The historical accuracy of the Bible (or any other historical source) has nothing to do with its use in later Christian religions.
-
alice.in.wonderland
Leolaia, I Googled your name in combination with Jehovah's Witnesses and turns out you're all over the internet formulating information against Jehovah's Witnesses. Freeminds even has a book: Exposing `Should You Believe In The Trinity?'
It's seems more reasonable to point to the absurdity of the Trinity than to address and disprove the trinitarian "proof texts" in the Bible. Even if these scriptures trinitarians point to stated something in plain speech like: "God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are three persons in one: A Trinity." 1 Trinity 3:16. Would this really prove anything?
ti p. 4 How Is the Trinity Explained?
"Beyond the Grasp of Human Reason"
This confusion is widespread. The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be "beyond the grasp of human reason."
Many who accept the Trinity view it that same way. Monsignor Eugene Clark says: "God is one, and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it." Cardinal John O'Connor states: "We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don't begin to understand." And Pope John Paul II speaks of "the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity."
Thus, A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge says: "Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves."
Nobody really believes in the Trinity, they just say they do.
If someone were to say, "I believe 1+1+1 = 1." If this person received at least a D- in math on their first report card in kindergarten, I'd know they don't believe that.
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-32-390-Religion.aspx
Most major religions have believed in the existence of a supernatural realm, a realm beyond the natural world of physical objects and bodies governed by causal laws, the world we perceive with our senses and can study by rational methods. Some religions posit a personal god (or gods); others believe in impersonal supernatural forces. (See George Walsh, The Role of Religion in History, chapter 1.) Objectivism rejects any notion of the supernatural as incompatible with the objectivity and regularity of nature as identified by reason. There is no credible evidence of miracles, magic, or other supernatural phenomena in nature.
The dominant forms of religion in our culture posit a personal god, a Supreme Being, who created the world, is omnipotent and omniscient, imposes moral duties on man, and expects worship. Those who accept this idea have the burden of showing why such a hypothesis is necessary. In this regard, Objectivists are atheists because the arguments for the existence of such a being are not sound. Objectivists reject the existence of God for the same reason they reject the existence of elves, leprechauns, and unicorns: because there is no credible evidence of such beings.
Objectivism regards reason as an absolute. It holds that all knowledge is based on the evidence of the senses. It holds that all beliefs, conclusions, and convictions must be established by logical methods of inquiry and tested by logical methods of verification. In short, it holds that the scientific approach applies to all areas of knowledge. Blind faith, by contrast, consists in belief not based on evidence, or based on such spurious forms of "evidence" as revelation and authority. Faith is essentially an arbitrary exercise of the mind, a willful credulity based on subjective emotions rather than objective evidence, a desire for certainty without the scrupulous cognitive effort required to achieve rational certainty. Faith cannot substitute for reason as a means of knowledge, nor can it supplement reason. Reason is incompatible with arbitrary procedures of any kind.
Even if you believe God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are three separate entities, outside of Jehovah's Organization you don't even have any evidence that the benevolent God of the Bible (YHWH) exists, let alone a religion with anymore truth to it than Jehovah's Witnesses. That's is why campaigning against Jehovah's Witnesses is a blind ambition or an endeavor that has no practical meaning. Maybe it's a tribute to Satan and I guess that has its own special type of reward.
-
Leolaia
This is not a thread about the trinity. This is a thread about Ezekiel's oracle about Egyptian desolation. You are throwing this thread way off topic. If you want to discuss the trinity or any other topic, start a new thread for that.
Even if you believe God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are three separate entities, outside of Jehovah's Organization you don't even have any evidence that the benevolent God of the Bible (YHWH) exists, let alone a religion with anymore truth to it than Jehovah's Witnesses. That's is why campaigning against Jehovah's Witnesses is a blind ambition or an endeavor that has no practical meaning. Maybe it's a tribute to Satan and I guess that has its own special type of reward
This is getting really silly.
-
PSacramento
If someone were to say, "I believe 1+1+1 = 1." If this person received at least a D- in math on their first report card in kindergarten, I'd know they don't believe that.
I love JW math :)
How does this equation work for you?
1 x 1 x 1 = 1
Math, you gotta love it !!
-
alice.in.wonderland
Leolaia, some people here have accused me of being in negative standing as one of Jehovah's Witnesses because of my participation on this discussion group. The truth of the matter is I've been somewhat irregular to the meetings because I've been recovering from from clinical anxiety and depression, that's why there was a tendency to venture on-line a bit, otherwise I wouldn't be here. However, I didn't stop receiving assistance directly from Jehovah.
However, we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the power beyond what is normal may be God’s and not that out of ourselves. 2 Corinthians 4:7
Watchtower 06/01/1994 - Have You Found the Right Religion?
"The Bible shows us how to have happy families. It provides answers that enable a person to cope with the most stressful situations in life, including rejection by close family members, catastrophic illness, and the death of a loved one. It helps us to discern our priorities so that our lives are filled with meaning instead of regret."
Ex-Jehovah's Witnesses in opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses like Barbara Anderson are Christians that progressed to spiritual maturity and for selfish reasons plummeted into a self-destructive course of rebellion against Jehovah. That's why they campaign against his human representatives. You said you were just “an unbaptized publisher as a child and as a teen.” If this is true, you're not likely in their situation.
I won't be starting a new thread here. This place is nothing but a cesspool of contamination. It's not like I can “help” anyone here. The things you say are backed by sound scholarship but the answer is no: the archeology you make reference to, doesn't change the truth about what's in Ezekiel 29:12 and the Watchtower Society's literary output on the prophecy of the desolation of Egypt for 40 years. They made an honest endeavour in reaching these conclusions. You can add me as a friend now or in the future: alice.in.wonderland profile -
isaacaustin
LOL AIW, perhaps what you are saying is true, perhaps not. Either way, if you were to tell your elders you come here you would no longer be a JW. LOL Assuming you are who you claim to be. I would suggest you continue in receiving treatment for your depression, and take your meds for whatever other mental issues you have.