March WT: Dumb That Takes Your Breath Away?

by metatron 28 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  undercover

  ...when you consider the fact that the gospels and Daniel/Isaiah were written hundreds of years apart and were not originally contained in a single book, the example you posted isn't circular reasoning. The gospels and Daniel/Isaiah are technically two different sources of information and using one to confirm the other isn't circular reason.

  Using that logic then:

  Fang-growing, blood sucking, burn-up-in-the-sunlight, sleep in coffin, creatures of the night vampires actually do exist...since different sources from different time periods have related stories of such creatures...

  We don't have to take Bram Stoker's word for it...confirmation comes from other writers like Ann Rice and Charlaine Harris.

  The point being...using one work of fantasy or fiction to try to 'confirm' the other work is pretty lame.
• 

  JWoods

  Whether it is true circular logic or not, it presumes that the old references are true because the new references MUST be true. Which is kind of self-referential in that a WT thinker could reverse it:

  The New Testament MUST be true because the Daniel reference is assumed to be automatically true.

  Thus completing the idiots circle (even if several authors and documents are involved) - i.e., the one unproven thing proves another unproven thing and vice versa.
• 

  neverendingjourney

  Aragorn really existed because Frodo said so.
• 

  TD

  TOH,

  The JW's as I'm sure you know interpret passages in the Bible in at least two ways:

  1. What it meant then.

  2. What it means now.

  With the second approach, the JW's often commit an exegetical fallacy called the "Invisible interpreter." The words are interpreted as if they were spoken here and now and passages thereby take on a larger meaning today than they originally had.

  I have never seen that connection made; each occurence where it has been referenced to, it has been added that at Paul's time, the 37 books of the OT were available, so his reference is to the OT. Never have I heard the assumption made that this could possibly refer to the 66 books of the Bible - many of which were yet to be written at the time Paul made his statement.

  The JW's often do make that qualification you mention when they're discussing what the text meant "Then." But they are not the least bit shy about enlarging on the original application when they discuss what it means "Now."

  In 1963, they published a Genesis to Revelation treatment of the Protestant 66 book Bible. The title of the book as you know, was "All Scripture Is Inspired Of God And Beneficial." That title was unilaterally applied to the entire 66 books.

  "All scripture is inspired of God." These words of 2 Timothy 3:16 identify God, whose name is Jehovah, as the Author and Inspirer of the Holy Scriptures. How satisfyingly delightful the inspired Scriptures are! What an amazing fund of true knowledge they provide! They are indeed "the very knowledge of God" that has been sought after and treasured by lovers of righteousness in all ages -Proverbs 2:5. (page 7)

  To JW's the "Holy Scriptures" are not the OT alone:

  "The sacred Scriptures, as a collection from Genesis to Revelation, form one complete Book, one complete library, all inspired by the one supreme Author.." (page 11)

  It could be argued, I guess, that they were only applying a principle and not making a direct application of this verse. To me, it seems that that only moves the problem one step farther away without solving it. The basis for applying the principle at some point would need to be explained.
• 

  AGuest

  a favorite with JW's is 2 Tim 3:16, but that is a circular prior assumption that the 66 book compilation we know today as the "Bible" is the "scripture" that Paul was making (prophetic) reference to. "

  I hear you, dear TD, and may you have peace! Your point is valid: Paul couldn't have been referring to the Bible because, with the exception of Matthew's and Luke's gospel accounts, and Luke's account of the Apostles (Acts), NO other "books" (which is a misnomer, because they were most letters) of the Bible canon had yet been written, except some by him. Of the others:

  5 were written by John close to 30 years AFTER Paul made his statement about "scripture," including John's gospel account and the Revelation, so he couldn't have been referring to those...

  Mark's gospel account, and the letters by Peter, James, and Jude, were being written contemporaneously, so he couldn't have been referring to those...

  He MIGHT have been including John's (yes, John's and not Paul's) letter to the Hebrews... but since that was TO "the Hebrews"... and thus, not the Greek or other members of the Body (i.e., Romans, Corinthians, Thessalonians, etc.), that's highly unlikely...

  So, that only leaves the 12 letters written by (or, at least, attributed to) Paul himself... which would be a bit presumptious, wouldn't it, especially in light of the fact that Paul himself write, "I believe I have God's holy spirit on this," or "I say, yes, I and NOT the Lord," etc.? I mean, can one part be "inspired" and thus "holy" and the other part not? Of course not, as the Holy Spirit doesn't give partial messages.

  So, that leaves the part of the Bible called the "Old" Testament. Is all of IT "scripture"? Many Bible-pushers believe it is. But if it is... why didn't my Lord "fully open up" ALL of it to his disciples. According to the record (which these put their faith in), he only "opened" up Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Ezra wasn't a prophet. Neither was Mordecai. Enoch was, however, and his "book" isn't in there. Nor is the of Jashur, the Jubilees, etc.

  And, finally, the precursor to the current Bible canon wasn't even COMPILED... until the 4th century CE (at the Synod of Hippo in 393). And even then, it contained books which were later considered by Protestants to be 'apocryphal' and so either published in a separate section... or removed altogether. Yet, surviving manuscripts of the whole Christian Bible (for example the Codices Vatincanus, Sinaiticu, Alexandrinus, and the Peshitta) include some of these books, as well as others (i.e., Judit, Tobit, the Maccabees, and more). Even Luther's Bible included these books, albeit in a separate apocryphal section.

  So, the current Bible canons, in their entireties and as they exist today, whether those used by Protestants (which most here are, even if they believe they are not because they've been taught by the WTBTS that they are not) OR those used by Catholics... cannot be "scripture," regardless the version.

  Again, I bid you peace!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  metatron

  Yup, Isaiah and Daniel establish the authenticity of Jesus as Christ ....................... and Jesus establishes the authenticity of Isaiah and Daniel in his authority as Christ.

  Now why would anyone see a circle here? I just can't imagine....

  This Watchtower also uses another fallacy that has occasionally appeared on this august forum : Your argument against Bible authenticity gets stopped because no one wants to say anything bad about Jesus, not even atheists!

  Gasp! You mean you think that Jesus was WRONG? That he was MISTAKEN? Or that he flat out LIED? Or that the Gospel Writers JUST MADE UP STORIES? OMG!

  This is the silliness that the Watchtower uses to "prove" authenticity. You just can't say such bad stuff about Jesus. So, that settles it.

  Allow me a brief tangent here: I also notice that, while the Theocratic Masters of Time and Space get apoplectic about Facebook, these ivory tower prophets never seem to notice the societal change in popular presentations of Jesus. Why ( repeat the Witness 'worse and worse' mantra) South Park and Family Guy commonly portray Jesus as a comedic ineffective figure. - something that would be absolutely unthinkable a decade ago.

  I guess the nincompoops ( a very funny word - small kids love it) at the "Awake" are.................asleep.

  metatron
• 

  moshe

  It took a few years before I realized that theologians and clergy have confused fact with opinion. Just ask your self, is this fact or opinion when you read the Bible- just don't use the Bible to self-validate itself. That would be like asking Charles Manson, if he did anything wrong to deserve being locked up in prison for life.
• 

  MissingLink

  Soooo.... Many books refer to Sherlock Holmes, and these were written over a hundred years apart. Does this mean the stories about him are verified as true?

  One fictional character can not validate another. I don't care if they are (supposedly) 2 thousand years apart.
• 

  SirNose586

  They did the same thing with the Flood. "Jesus said it happened, therefore it did." It's certainly less work than laboriously trying to float the notion that a huge wooden box, bigger than any wooden ship that would ever be built, could successfully keep a ship full of all the earth's species at the time alive during a planetary flood (which covered all the mountains in the world) to engage in some strange form of hyper-evolution to create all the species we know of today.