TD, I’ve kindly explained the parameters JW use that apply to leadership, policy and commentary. Take for example Luke, he is credited with writing a gospel and Acts. Because the Bible says that God entrusted his written word to the Jews, JW commentators don’t ignore Colossians but conclude anyway that Luke was a Jew, so when prey pray, crying out to God for food or for salvation from a predator, does the One opening his hand and satisfying the desire of every thing listen in future paradise or to be eaten alive while everybody else is enjoying Utopia? Therefore, when the Bible says that during Eden, animals ate vegetation juxtaposition a lion built for the kill as you have shown, how should JW thinkers like me and writers of JW literature interpret the Bible? That it is inconsistent? Jesus’s Parousia depends on the flood of Noah: “So the presence of the son of man will be.”—No flood, no presence. Since Jesus’s Parousia began in 1914 to JW, the Noah’s story is also consistent with with JW teaching in JW commentary as JW interpret the Bible in-spite of scientific presents that challenge the Bible at present. As I posted earlier, ultimately but not at this time, the Bible will either be vindicated or scientifically debunked. In the meantime, the story of Noah is arguably true within the realm of science.
Is it mathematically posible for Noah and his sons to have populated the earth?
by Fisherman 51 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Fisherman
Any way I can get more info about that? Is he still a JW?
Hi Magnum, I sincerely enjoy your sincere posts.
JW obviously know the scientific evidence without a pet doc pointing it out. I also think I’ve answered your question in my posts.
Many decades ago, a very young man speaking with a JW scientist who was also in the WT writing team also said ( the scientist) that the wolf and lamb prophecy and predators eating straw is symbolic referring to personalities and spoke about livestock and eating steak in Paradise— I vividly remember. He also had the same delightful style as TD. The point is that JW don’t know besides interpreting what the Bible says. From a human felt interpretation the Almighty how could it be paradise with living creatures attacking other living creatures feeling pain and suffering and crying out to God with more trees than stars in the milkyway that csn produce food?
-
waton
Fisherman, thanks for telling us that jw, watchtower beliefs are wishful thinking. . that is scary, the deity is telling us, help is coming as surely as the fairytales are true, really happened as told.
-
TD
Fisherman
How should JW thinkers like me and writers of JW literature interpret the Bible?
Honestly and consistently
I understand that religious people would naturally give greater weight to what they perceive the Bible to be saying and I'm fine with that even if I don't agree with it. The point where I begin having a problem is when a religious person casts that "rule" aside when it becomes inconvenient.
JW's teach that predators are a deviation of God's original purpose, which is an idea that originated with Augustine of Hippo and not the JW's themselves.
Therefore, when Jehovah of the Bible takes credit in front of Job for the ability of lions and birds of prey to hunt, JW's are faced with a problem, as taking credit for something you didn't actually do or plan would be dishonest, even for humans.
If I were a JW, the choice would be easy for me: Cling to church tradition or drag the name of Jehovah through the mud?
[To Magnum] JW obviously know the scientific evidence without a pet doc pointing it out.
I disagree. JW literature in often wrong on matters of basic science. I have yet to see a lucid explanation of an equinox, for example.
When it comes to basic, high school biology, JW writers come up with pearls like this:
(The Watchtower February 15, 1982 p. 5)
Even worse, they refuse to correct these mistakes, so they eventually find their way into bound volumes, CDs and other references.
-
cofty
Wow!
-
Fisherman
The point where I begin having a problem is when a religious person casts that "rule" aside when it becomes inconvenient..
So it seems to you, professor because our leaders are not being a “smartass” about it when they are coxing our organization. The honesty and consistency in representation and in interpretation is to God’s word even when scientific evidence points in another direction: Such as Jehovah taking credit for predatory design in Job. But is it conclusive therefore, that predation was God’s intended purpose from the beginning as you conclude? vis-à-vis “Jehovah is a manly person of war”, humans having the potential to kill and prey and destroy, the angels and Jesus’s warrior capacity. Was that Jehovah’s intended purpose from the beginning? Therefore, JW consider other variables than scientific findings as I pointed out in my previous post, without casting out the standard when it seems in the Bible that Job contradicts Eden. That is what the Bible says. JW is not the source of what the Bible says and the scriptures cannot be nullified. I kindly pointed out previously Dr., that the stories are given to us, those are all the pieces of the puzzle given to us, that’s how they fit, and that’s how we see the picture when we try to apply the rule of all scriptures is inspired— which simply means all scriptures are consistent even if they seem to contradict each other or even if they seem to contradict with science. That is what the Bible claims and that is the standard JW consistently try to apply the best they can.JW literature in often wrong on matters of basic science.
Seemingly. The WT article you quote goes against science. In this case, all bets are off when WT tries to scientifically explain the miraculous conception of Jesus, God providing the promised seed with its genetics.Take for example evidence presented at trial. Some evidence is not that heavy. And right or wrong does not affect the substance of the weightier evidence. -
jonahstourguide
This is why they put blinkers on race horses,,,,,so they cannot perceive reality or a wider view.
Sadly the wt corporation insists on blinkers for its adherents, it is why the wt insists on a regime of obfuscation.
I also used to wear their blinkers once. Then I removed them. Now I am in a beautiful field of reality as opposed to a field of failed promises.
Life is beautiful without them and the organisation that insists on followers wearing them.
jtg
-
Fisherman
This is why they put blinkers on race horses,,,,,so they cannot perceive reality or a wider view.
Not when you are solving for Y with given factors. Whether or not the solution is true depends upon the Bible being true.That is why I qualified the distinction between evidence and interpretation in a previous post. The Bible gives us the story of Noah as historical event, a fact. At present, the interpretation of some scientific evidence appears to challenge the Bible record. However, when interpreting the Bible, the story of Noah is factored in as given.
-
waton
scientific evidence appears to challenge the Bible record
right:
~ 10 000 meter of water falling in 40 days, at 10 meters an hour, everywhere. disappearing afterward.
A wooden vessel made with antique tools and methods half the size of the titanic, and not breaking.***
Slow animals, specific feeders, like sloths, pandas , koalas returning to their distant habitat quickly.
Lying vegetarians, lions, hyenas, pythons surviving in the vessel with only 2 rabbits, horses, elephants on the boarding list, and the former
upon exit quickly evolving into carnivores.
"appears to" "challenge" is wt deception speak.
*** it was a miracle wood, grew like balsa, turned into ash's toughness after assembly, and became alive and grew together, healed water tight into one tree. food? "miracle wheat"
-
peacefulpete
The Bible gives us the story of Noah as historical event,
Does it? Ever considered the story was meant as allegory? Teachers, even the Jesus of the Gospels used parables. The Rabbis have filled volumes with folk tales and colorful midrash. That there are two separate versions of the Noah story in Genesis would support that there were local adaptations of a popular story better than dismissing the evidence and insisting these stories are historical.