Embarrassing J.w 'historical' article ... Cringe....

by snare&racket 11 Replies latest jw friends

snare&racket

What would an article look like if written by cult leaders promoting igorant beliefs, drowning under the weight of real evidence....? Enjoy! (Link below)
From the first sentence, to literally the last sentence on this page, I cringed with embarassment and awe at the ignorance and blatant corrupt word play and mental gymnastics now employed to convince the impossible! It was actually embarassing to read!
I dont think this article would have floated in the days when I was a JW, not that long ago. I am suprised to even see such an article., It just made me think 'wow these guys are obviously struggling against REAL information!' ....a joy to see!
Please read it and note the evidence they have for their concluding statements at the end of every question/issue. JW's wont eat sh*t like this for too long, this is latant B.S. ITS EMBARASSINGLY POOR!
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g20040408/moses-man-or-myth/
snare x
p.s. the worst sentence is the last, they are trying to belittle a scholar who thinks the works of moses was written by many writers, one who he cslls 'J'..... " They *NOT ONLY* deny that it was Moses *BUT* also proclaim that “J was a woman.” - i forget how sexist these cun*s are!
As i was reading it, i noticed it is all about what they dont tell the reader, it is so deceptive and someone has delibretly omitted the real points and arguments made by scholars, e.g. interestingly the supposed writer mentioned above used the name 'jehovah' hence the scholar called her 'J'... But the name Jehovah came ito existence 700 years AFTER....JESUS!!! Yesh, notice how the WT didn't mention that little factoid lol. So they are pretending that moses wrote a book that is older than jesus. Sweet.
DATA-DOG

Where are the full quotes?
adamah

Gotta love this one:
Still, is it not hard to believe that a national leader would order the cold-blooded murder of infants? Scholar George Rawlinson reminds us: “Infanticide . . . has prevailed widely at different times and places, and been regarded as a trivial matter.” Indeed, one need not look far to find equally chilling examples of mass murder in modern times. The Bible account may be disturbing, but it is all too credible.
No, it's not really all THAT HARD to believe, esp. since the Bible provides equally-chilling examples of infanticide with a God who orders the cold-blooded murder of infants (and Pharoah was considered the living embodiment of an Egyptian God):
1st Samuel 15:3 (KJV)
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Does THAT kind of Biblical evidence support the credibility of the account, too?
Adam
PS Ah, there's nothing like WT's continued long-standing practice of quoting someone as an authority on a topic, when the authority COMPLETELY DISAGREES with the conclusion the article is attempting to make, AKA cherry-picking.
WT says-
In his book Exploring Exodus, Nahum M. Sarna observes that while there are some similarities, the story of Moses’ birth departs from “The Legend of Sargon” in “many significant respects.” Claims that the Bible account was derived from a pagan legend thus ring hollow.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahum_M._Sarna
Sarna's approach to study of the Bible appears to be founded on the following question: What was the purpose of the Biblical narrative for the people in whose benefit it was composed? Thus, the question of why the Torah presents a particular account in a particular fashion is to be answered by considering the purpose which the narrative is set to achieve. Thus, for Sarna, the prospect of judging the "scientific" merits of the account of Creation is misguided, and literalismespecially is to be utterly rejected if an honest interaction with the texts is to be achieved (Sarna 1966, p. xxiii). With reference to his Understanding Genesis, he writes:
If it rejects the literalist approach to Scripture, it is solely because that approach cannot stand the test of critical scholarly examination. Literalism involves a fundamental misconception of the mental processes of biblical man and ignorance of his modes of self expression. It thus misrepresents the purport of the narrative, obscures the meaningful and enduring in it and destroys its relevancy. At the same time, literalism must of necessity become the victim of hopeless inconsistency. By what quirk of faith or logic has the science of astronomy finally merited indifference or even sympathy on the part of our fundamentalists, whereas the biological, geological and anthropological sciences still encounter hostility? A century after Darwin, some people still reject his theories as heresy, or else find it necessary to attempt some tortuous "reconciliation" between Scripture and evolution. Yet the heliocentric theories of Copernicus and Galileo effectuate no comparable stimulation of the sympathetic system. Phrases like the "rising" or "setting" of the sun occur scores of times in the Bible and were certainly meant and understood literally, in accordance with the prevailing cosmologies, until but a few hundred years ago. Today, no one would dream of citing these biblical phrases to discredit the science of astronomy. A metaphorical interpretation in these instances no longer causes an excessive secretion of adrenalin.
Further, Sarna strenuously argues that the opening chapters of Genesis must not be interpreted as a treatise on science. Approaching the Biblical narrative in this fashion only results in "tortuous reconciliations" that sacrifice both intellectual honesty and the true meaning of the Biblical passages. Thus, the "scientific" interpretation of Genesis is seen by Sarna as the worst of two worlds (Sarna 1966, p. 3):
Adam
snare&racket

Yeah these guys dont do references or any kind of responsible writing at all! In science every sentence is referenced to the evidence and where you can see and read it. The WT method is somewhat lacking...
"Critics (who?) say that Moses’ rescue from the Nile River sounds suspiciously similar to the ancient legend of King Sargon of Akkad?(why?)-a story that some say (who)predates the story of Moses (why?). It also tells of an infant in a basket who was rescued from a river.
The WT writers answer to these unknown, unamed historical scholars?
" However, history is full of coincidences. And placing an infant in a river may not have been as unusual as it might seem."
Oh ok then......
You just have to believe them without question for this article to work, for example... " While direct physical proof may be lacking, there is considerable indirect evidence that the Bible account is credible." Lol!
it gets worse... Now they make themselves the authority on the topic....
" True, no Egyptian record of this event has been found. But the Egyptians were not above altering historical records..."
" As for the lack of archaeological evidence for the wilderness sojourn, we must remember that the Jews were nomads. They built no cities; they planted no crops. Presumably, they left behind little more than footprints"
" Unquestionably, then, the Bible’s account of Moses is credible, truthful."
oh my goodness this is so bad! It is the worst scholarly effort I have ever, ever read. I kmow it is stupid to expect anything more from ex eindow cleaners defending their beleifs following a wikipeia read on egyptian history...... But this is SOOOO BAD it is embarassing and shameful writing.
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g20040408/moses-man-or-myth/
adamah

S&R, I dunno if you've ever seen the publication WT wrote on evolution a few years ago (can't remember it's name), but they actually admitted in the footnotes that the authorities they cited to question evolution ACTUALLY BELIEVE in evolution! So while it's a step in the right direction of intellectual honesty, it seems they're banking on the reader not bothering to read the footnotes, and/or not putting 'two and two' together to see the blatent dishonesty of using a scientist's words to reach a conclusion they wouldn't agree with....
Adam
snare&racket

Yeah i saw that Adam, it was so deceitful! it gave me an insight into the people writing it. They purposefully took segments out of concept, to think....what JW could **knowingly** decieve in such a manner ? Someone without morals or conscience!
The problem with that brochure.... It will never be read or studied by JW's.... It is something to be placed with a person on the doors who has evolutionary facts and evidence which is literally bamboozling the ignoramt JW stood before them spurting comments such as "imagine a hurricane going throufh a plane scrapyard and a plane forming by chance..." Etc etc
The brochure is a cheap way of making JWs THINK that they have answers that prove evolution wrong, because they have a brochure for it..... The ruse works too...as long as the JW doesnt read or study the thing lol...guess what.. They dont!
The educated person behind the door will just be repulsed by the deceit in the brochure. The average JW wont have a clue what the problem is in quoting a scientist saying they belive evolution is faulty whilst the footnote says they believe in evolution. The average JW will say... What a confused hypocritical scientist! Not thinking for a MILLIsecond that they were in any way deceived or lied to.
Its very frustrating and immoral.
Vidiot

Despite the logical gymnastics and attempts at giving an appearance of scientific credibility, the WTS is unable to budge on evolution for ideological reasons.
AndDontCallMeShirley

WT: While direct physical proof may be lacking, there is considerable indirect evidence that the Bible account is credible
This is like saying that, if 2,000 years from today archaeologists discover the buried ruins of New York City, it's "indirect evidence" that Spiderman was real.
Julia Orwell

"Origins of Life- 5 Questions Worth Asking" is the name of the evolution/creation brochure you're probably referring to. I remember trying to 'reason' creation or at least ID from it with my brother, but never actually used it because when I looked at the arguments and analogies they were so flimsy and logically flawed an educated person would see right through it. Hey I did, and I was a believing JW. It was such a silly brochure.
adamah

Yup, that's the one. Thanks, Julia.
It's online, and shockingly they even admitted this in the TEXT:
Microbiologist Radu Popa does not agree with the Bible’s account of creation. Yet, in 2004 he asked: “How can nature make life if we failed with all the experimental conditions controlled?” 13 He also stated: “The complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that a simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible.” 14
The more typical is how they show page after page of admissions buried in the footnotes, like this:
Professor Shapiro does not believe that life was created.He believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood. In 2009, scientists at the University of Manchester, England, reported making some nucleotides in their lab. However, Shapiro states that their recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.”

Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood.
As if any scientist would say that ANY theory was EVER fully understood (scientist: "That does it, folks! We've got EVERYTHING figured out now, so we're hanging up the test tubes now!"). What a weasel word disclaimer, "not yet fully understood".
Later they seemingly quit trying, figuring it's hopeless anyway (or, they're banking on most readers not reading the footnotes after the first few pages, even if they did). They just use the word 'evolution'.

Note: None of the researchers quoted in this box believe in the Bible’s teaching of creation. All accept the teaching of evolution.
It should be noted that neither the New Scientist article nor Bapteste nor Rose mean to suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. Their point, rather, is that Darwin’s proposed tree of life, a mainstay of his theory, is not supported by the evidence. Such scientists still seek other explanations involving evolution.

Henry Gee does not suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record.

Malcolm S. Gordon supports the teaching of evolution.
I don't relish the challenge of having to cherry-pick thru scientific articles, thumbing through page after page in order to hunt for anything that could CONCEIVABLY be taken out of context in order to cobble together an article challenging evolution. Now THAT takes a talented writer!!!
Adam

Embarrassing J.w 'historical' article ... Cringe....

Share this