Actually, Friday, I have read the book of Esther. I've also read the Watchtower's self-glorifying crap about what it means.
But that isn't the point. My point was that you called JeffT's pastor a liar. That's not a nice thing to call someone, if it isn't true.
Now, as I read Jeff's comments, I noticed that he said that his pastor brought out some points that he found interesting, based upon the wording in the original Hebrew. I also noticed that Jeff said that his pastor has a theology doctorate and is fluent in both Greek and Hebrew.
Your knee-jerk reaction, in typical Watchtower-drone fashion, was to call him a liar because he disagreed with the interpretation of the text advanced by the masters of your faith in Brooklyn.
So, I'm calling you on it. If you really think he's a liar, you are morally obligated to do two things:
1. You need to prove him wrong in his understanding of the Hebrew text. You can do this by demonstrating your own superior knowledge of Hebrew (*cough*), or you can call upon the works of experts in the language. Either way, you must build a substantial case that the meaning he took from his understanding of the Hebrew terms is inaccurate.
2. After you have done that, you need to build a case against him to show that he maliciously and deliberately distorted the meaning of the scripture, when he knew or should have known better. After all, you didn't claim that he was "mistaken," you called him a "liar," and that implies a bad motive. So you must demonstrate that such a bad motive exists.
What's that? You don't know squat about the Hebrew text of Esther, and don't know anybody who does? And you've never met Jeff's pastor, or even heard of him prior to this thread, and so couldn't possibly comment on his motives? That's what I thought. So you owe both Jeff and his pastor an apology.
Remember Proverbs 18:13: "He who answers before listening - that is his folly and his shame."
Now, the only other question I have is, is having "folly" and "shame" equivalent to being a "Donkey's Butt"?
