The bible crisis thread

by Joey Jo-Jo 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Joey Jo-Jo

  Ill start from the beggining

  I was a non bathtised JW who had spend most of my 30 years in the "truth". I never was too serious about applying myself to it but my mind was set that this was the "truth". Later I wanted to take the extra step on getting bathtised so I started to take things more seriously, but during my bible study I read books which sparked my curiosity, a more liberal approached, I wanted to see what all sides of religion say and how do they stack up with the Jehovah's witnesses. Long story cut short after reading COC and ISOCF I was no longer interested in the "truth", I read a new completely different view of the bible.

  I decide that since the bible is God's word then it should be read, no more human reasoning, I wanted to explain the bible to someone and not the other way around, so I read the ESV study bible, 4 in 1 bible KJV AMP NASB NIV, strongs... etc.

  What I found about these studies is that the Evangelists are genuinely confused because they use the KJV so they believe in the trinity, the virgen birth and hell fire, other interesting things I learned about the NASB catholics too. What I found after reading books on how the bible came about, it was interesting to know that the old English bibles (geneva and KJC in the 16th century ) were actually based on newer manuscripts, what happened was that this gave birth to religions. TO BE CONTINUED.
• 

  pirata

  Joey, I look forward to your continuation. I have just started to explore this area as I was previously unaware that there were so many books that were chosen from to decide what the NWT "canon" would be.
• 

  Black Sheep

  I decide that since the bible is God's word then it should be read,..........

  If your Dad was a muslim, or Hindu, would you still think the Bible is God's word?

  Why choose the Bible? Is your belief that it is God's word merely an artifact from your upbringing? How do you prove it? Is the proof any better than for other religious works?

  BTW, I'm an unwashed born-in myself, so I have been in your shoes. After admitting to myself that nothing I knew about religion wasn't tainted by an accident of birth, and read a fresh Bible using nothing more than the rules of grammar and not playing mind games to read into it what wasn't really there, I had a very different view of god and religion.

  Cheers

  Chris
• 

  Joey Jo-Jo

  Black Sheep: I was using JW lingo, I will get to that.
• 

  Joey Jo-Jo

  Apparently I can only edit posts in a 30 min period, so Ill just post it here.

  Ill start from the beginning

  I was a non bathtised JW who had spend most of my 30 years in the "truth". I never was too serious about applying myself to it but my mind was set that this was the "truth". Later I wanted to take the extra step on getting bathtised so I started to take things more seriously, but during my bible study I read books which sparked my curiosity, a more liberal approached, I wanted to see what all sides of religion say and how do they stack up with the Jehovah's witnesses. Long story cut short after reading COC and ISOCF I was no longer interested in the "truth", I read a completely different view of the bible IN ISOCF.

  I decide at that time since the bible is God's word then it should be read, no more human reasoning, I wanted to explain the bible to someone and not the other way around, so I have read parts of the ESV study bible, 4 in 1 bible KJV AMP NASB NIV, strongs... etc. I was told in my JW days that all bibles are the same, and ours are the same as KJV but it turns out that they differ, NWT is nothing like the KJV.

  What I found about these studies is that the Evangelists are genuinely confused because they use the KJV so they believe in the trinity, the virgen birth and hell fire, other interesting things I learned about the NASB catholics too. What I found after reading books on how the bible came about, it was interesting to know that the old English bibles (geneva and KJC in the 16th century ) were actually based on newer manuscripts with changed words and added texts, which religions based their beliefs, the problem with that is once a religion is establish and a better translation with support of older manuscripts cames out, that religion has no choice but to demonise the other version of the bible/religion.

  The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (Textus Receptus / Stephanus / Byzantine Majority / Orthodox Church) and more recently Westcott & Hort rejected it, their research is based on Alexandrian (Nestle, et al. texts based on Vaticanus and W & H publication The New Testament in the Original Greek is used in the NWT, NIV and others.

  So what happens when an Evangelist is presented with a bible that uses its NT source from the W & H book? take a guess.

  http://www.theshepherdsvoice.org/kjv/a_comparison_of_the_kjv_niv.html

  1 Question

  Are all bibles the same? NO

  Let me add that I have the Kingdom Interlinear and the Interlinear bible and I never expected the NT original Greek to differ from each book. This is what made me look into all this.

  TO BE CONTINUED
• 

  Black Sheep

  You appear to be recruiting for a religion that is based around the Bible character that vandalised a fig tree to show off to his mates.
• 

  Joey Jo-Jo

  I will get to that but part of the problem is religion, starting a religion is like digging a hole to the point that you can't get back out.

  None of the writers in NT told us which religion to follow but to follow Christ, but which Christ?
• 

  Black Sheep

  ...but which Christ?

  This one? http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/187164/1/Jesus-Curses-the-Fig-Tree
• 

  Joey Jo-Jo

  Maybe Jesus hates fig trees lol.

  Part 2

  In part 1 I touched briefly on differences in manuscripts and how they effect ones understanding of the bible.

  But what about the bible? are they all in harmony or contradict each other? if they do is it because they had their own agenda with their own understandings and problems dealing with their own people?

  Here is a list of Jesus contradictions.

  Two different accounts of Jesus birth

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_of_Jesus

  Who Carries Jesus’ Cross?: Did Jesus carry his own cross or not?
  
  Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26 - Jesus gets help from Simon of Cyrene
  John 19:17 - Jesus carries his own cross the whole way Inscription on Jesus’ Cross: When crucified, Jesus’ cross had an inscription — but what did it say?
  
  Mark 15:26 - The inscription: “The King of the Jews.”
  Matthew 27:37 - The inscription: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.”
  Luke 23:38 - The inscription: “This is the King of the Jews.”
  John 19:19 - The inscription: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”

  Jesus and the Thieves: Some gospels say Jesus was crucified with two thieves, though the Romans never crucified thieves.
  
  Mark - The two thieves are mentioned, but there is no conversation
  Matthew 27:44 - The two thieves taunt Jesus
  Luke 23:39-42 - One thief taunts Jesus and is criticized by the other. Jesus promises the 2nd thief that they would be in Paradise that day, though John and Acts say he did not ascend to heaven until 40 days after his resurrection
  John - The two men aren’t described as thieves Does Jesus Drink Wine or Vinegar?: Jesus is given something to drink while he is on the cross, but what?
  
  Mark 15:23 - Jesus is given wine mixed with myrrh, but he doesn’t drink
  Matthew 27:48, Luke 23:36 - Jesus is given vinegar, but he doesn’t drink
  John 19:29-30 - Jesus is given vinegar and he drinks Jesus and the Centurion: Romans supposedly witnessed Jesus’ crucifixion, but what did they think?
  
  Mark 15:39 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this man was the son of God!”
  Matthew 27:54 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this was the son of God.”
  Luke 23:47 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this man was innocent.”
  John - No centurions say anything Women Watch the Curcifixion: The gospels describe several woman as having followed Jesus around, but what did they do when Jesus was crucified?
  
  Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:55, Luke 23:49 - Several women watch Jesus from afar
  John 19:25-26 - Several woman are close enough that Jesus could talk to his mother, contrary to Roman practices When Was Jesus Crucified?: The crucifixion of Jesus is the central event of the Passion narrative, but the narratives don’t agree on when the crucifixion occurred.
  
  Mark 15:25 - Jesus was crucified on the “third hour.”
  John 19:14-15 - Jesus was crucified on the “sixth hour.”
  Matthew, Luke - It’s not stated when the crucifixion starts, but the “sixth hour” occurs during the curcifixion Jesus’ Last Words: Jesus’ last words before dying are important, but no one seems to have written then down.
  
  Mark 15:34-37, Matthew 27:46-50 - Jesus says: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (but they use different Greek words for “God” — Matthew uses “Eli” and Mark uses “Eloi”)
  Luke 23:46 - Jesus says: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.”
  John 19:30 - Jesus says: “It is finished.” Earthquake After the Resurrection: Was there an earthquake when Jesus died?
  
  Matthew 27:51-53 - At the moment Jesus dies, a massive earth quake strikes and opens tombs where dead people rise again
  Mark, Luke, John - No earthquake is mentioned. No earthquake and no massive influx of formerly dead people is mentioned in any historical records, which is strange given how monumental such an event would be. These are not just wording that reads similar, they are completely different, this is currently my concern, what I thought was God's word happens to be a human book. 2 Question Does the bible contradict itself? YES Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not in harmony with other, instead while some Gospels use Mark they have their own agenda, there are major and minor contradictions in both OT and NT.
• 

  MarcusScriptus

  While I think your posts are very well presented and uniquely interesting, I do think you are carrying over a Watchtower belief that needs to be disposed of because it causes you to come to not very insightful conclusions. Sure there are contrasting differences that don't gel in the Bible, but I think it's something big to you because you're trying to get the Bible to be something the Witnesses claim it should be. Those outside the JW “compound”(like in Christendom) already know these things—they've known them for centuries—and still they accept the Bible. They will look at list like this and ask you if you slept through Sunday school as a kid.

  Sometimes we carry over a lot of JW baggage without realizing it. Using Watchtower criteria to judge things in the world will always leave us missing the point everyone else on the planet gets (not to mention the civilization that exists on the M-class planet closest to Betelgeuse). Not that we have to accept these things either, but we won't look very smart to begin with. (I.E.: Other person never a JW reads your points and replies to you in a sarcastic tone: Really? The Bible contradicts itself? Wow! After 2000 years of no one in Christianity ever seeing this, we should all be glad you were born into the world! Thank you, thank you so very much. Now excuse me, because I'm late for my buttock hair removal.)

  Unlike the way the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses would like us to believe, Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians did not derive their teachings from the Bible. Because—and this goes for Protestants in a roundabout way—Christianity was already functioning by the time the last of the writings that would be included in the New Testament was written, beliefs it had already developed before the Christian Greek Scriptures’ canonization such as the Trinity could never have come from a collection of holy writings that had yet to be considered the equivalent of God’s Word as found in the Tanakh or Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament).

  The KJV was introduced in 1611, the Catholic Douay in 1610, questions regarding the Byzantine/Masoretic-versus today’s critical master texts such as the UBS would not develop until much later of course. The formal Trinity doctrine predates the official canonization of the Christian Scriptures, however. Today’s Evangelical Christians come from American history, after Puritanism’s failure with the Salem Witch Hunts and extended past the Second Awakening into the time of the Adventist’s and the Watchtower’s own Charles Taze Russell. Attempting to put these things together would thus require a rip in the fabric of the space time continuum.

  While it’s not that other religions don’t hold the Bible to be God’s inspired, it’s that they don’t believe the Bible is the foundation of religious belief like the Witnesses do. Even for many sola-scriptura Evangelistic Fundamentalists, Christianity is a hodgepodge of beliefs found in and out of the Bible. Teachings such a marrying before a Church elder or a member of the clergy, adding books to the Hebrew Bible and considering them inspired equivalents, even beliefs the Witnesses don’t like such as the Trinity, worship on Sundays as a Christian observance of the Sabbath, the celebration of the Nativity, etc., all these are part of Christianity’s history which the Witnesses reject.

  The JWs are restorationism religion, a sect that believes that everything about God and religion before it is impure and unsatisfactory to the Creator until their own religious system came on the scene. The Latter-Day Saints believe this as do the Witnesses. But by rejecting Christianity and its history (not to mention Judaism’s), one has to reject the Church Fathers and those taught by them (as well as what rose from and after the Mishnah), as well as the great strides made in theology that followed. This is usually accompanied in these restorationism groups by a rejection of formal education and thus leaving them with no formal scholars whose knowledge can be put to the test by academia. Reading the Bible outside of the history of the communities and without following or even having learned academic and scholastic principles is dangerous indeed.

  Even the New Testament and the Bible makes it clear that there is much regarding God’s self revelation that would not be contained in its pages. Jesus stated that was why he was sending the Holy Spirit. It was that Spirit that moved the Christians to decide which books formally belonged in the Bible. You don’t find explicit details in the Bible regarding what makes up canonicity and what doesn’t, how many if any “gospels” should exist, why reject the well-known Didache but accept the virtually unheard of 2 Peter while putting well-distributed and popular Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter, and accepted the controversial (and back then highly suspicious) Revelation to John. The expressions and words regarding Biblical canonization do not even occur in Scripture. If you are supposed to do things “by the Book” in Christianity, then the Christians goofed since there is no instruction in the Hebrew Bible authorizing them to add their writings to the Jewish ones or how to even do it.

  That is why there are so many well-informed agnostics and atheists on this board. I’m still believe in God, but I highly respect them because they are usually some of the best examples of starting from scratch (usually, because just like people who claim to be religious there are also a few bad apples among any group that embraces an ideology—blame human nature, not necessarily our convictions). Unlearning is a very difficult process. Many of us don’t do that successfully upon leaving the Witnesses. It’s scary, very difficult. We don’t see where we will land. And because reality comes with very few guarantees (unlike the JWs who offer “an-answer-for-everything” type of religion), it something that will be—not might—demanding great emotional effort as well. Big challenges and steps to take.

  So before we begin judging other religious and philosophical systems just like the Watchtower did, we need to ask ourselves: “If you took the name of whatever I’m spouting and replaced with JW terms, am I still the same ‘preach/got-to-prove-others-wrong-because-I-got-it-right’ robot merely exchanging one ‘brand’ of rhetoric for another?”

  Sure, we’re all going to find something else after leaving from living over the oppressive and very heavy shadow of that Watchtower. The difference is we’re going to love others not “in spite” of these difference but because of them. We embrace others because they are the totality of everything they are. If they want to know more about what we believe or are doing, they’ll ask. And we can share without feeling like we have to prove anything wrong because—well, we’ve all been down that path.

  Now if there is someone to prove wrong it’s from where we left. Where we are going—a world filled with Evangelists, and Mormons, and atheists, and Jews, and Protestants, and Muslims, and Catholics, etc.—it’s best not to go out with guns blazing against the citizens of this world whose acceptance we now need after rejecting them so cruelly for so long. We definitely got being judges of what is and what isn’t “truth” so wrong already, it’s best not to make the same mistake twice. So if somebody has something different about them, even something we can’t accept, we should remember at least one lesson if nothing else after leaving the Witnesses…

  Having one foot in our mouth is forgivable. Those who can’t move because they managed to fit both in their trap are just left there to rot. If they aren’t smart enough to keep the second foot from getting stuck in their pie hole they deserve to go without feet and left to die under the hot sun on the side walk where the ants will think twice before rejecting to feast on them.

  And what good is there in having a pie hole if you have no room left to stick a slice in (not to mention that even if you did manage to get a slice in it would taste like foot)?