I was reading a book on early church fathers and early christian doctrines. I could not put the book down. I noticed that some of the early church fathers "denounced" war frowned upon celebrating holidays and also "birthdays" Some of their arguments sounded exactly like JW's and if you did not know you would have thought you were talking to some JW's. I know people are people no matter if you are a born-again, JW's etc; But alot of born-agains are always saying that JW's invented most of their doctrines and that no early church group believed as they do. But I am seeing that many things JW's believe in early church fathers taught to some degree as JW's. One born-again christian scholar that I have notice distorting the truth about JW's is Rob Bowman, the late Walter Martin, Ron Rhodes, to name a few. Rob Bowman has gone on record to denounce JW's about the way they translate John 8:58 (I have Been) instead of "I Am" Rob Bowman has been caught in several lies about the way JW's translate this passage from non-jw scholars. Many scholars feel that this passage is a past progressive action or a historical present. Action that took place in the past but continues to the present. And JW's are right in the way they translate it as I have Been. There are about 20 bible translators that translate it the same way or similar to JW's. I am not saying JW's are perfect innocent little people, but I feel that a scholar should not lie about a group they call a cult just to make them look worst. Perfect example would be that even though I feel OJ Simpson was guilty as sin I still think that America should leave him alone since he was acquitted. He will answer to God one day. So if JW's are wrong they will answer for it and Born-Agains should not lie on them or distort the truth about them to make them look worst.
Do "Born-Again Christians" lie on JW's to put them in a bad light?
by booker-t 18 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Triple A
I do not know about Rob Bowman, but I have read both Walter Martin and Ron Rhodes. Both have stated that the WTS are an off shot of the Adventist. Charles Russell joned in the 1834 was the invisible return of Jesus and 1874 was to be Armageddon . When 1874 came and went 1874 was the invisible return and 1914 was to be Armageddon.
There are other groups that follow Russell's teach, like the Dawn Students ( a break off because of Rutherford). But none as powerful as the WTS.
-
Leolaia
Accusing Robert Bowman of lying is a very strong claim.
Although there are two sides to the matter of John 8:58 and since the matter is not 100% conclusive, arguing that ego eimi should be rendered "I AM" should not at all be considered tantamount to "lying", even failing to consider certain pertinent evidence (while poor scholarship, if it is not obscure) should not be warrant such a strong term. Your own post failed to mention Bowman's own arguments and neglected to mention that many scholars (if not the majority) take the same position as Bowman. I would be interested in any specific examples of dishonesty on Bowman's part, of specific statements he made that are untrue, and so forth.
I agree that Walter Martin was dishonest, both about himself and about the evidence. Jim Penton wrote a little expose on him a while back.
-
ozziepost
"Lie on them"???? Huh?????
-
Brummie
Thanks leolaia, Bowman stays at my house when he is in England, he is an honest man and a friend, to call him a liar without documentation is unfair.
Dr Walter Martin has passed away but his daughter continues to run his website and debunks the arguments against him. I know Jim Penton is also an honest man and I would be interested in seeing his written piece agaisnt Martin? If its about the trinity though I have no interest.
It is of no surprise that the cult world tries to prove these men as liars, not exactly friends of theirs are they?
Brummie
-
NewLight2
booker-t,
Is English your first language??
I was wondering because I find this posting quite hard to read becuse it uses so many unfamiliar phrases.
NewLight2 -
MungoBaobab
Reading so many lies about JWs made me sick before and after I left. Before, because somebody was spreading falsehood about my religion, and after because diluting so many vaild criticisms with the "lies and half-truths" the WTS warns people about destroys the credibility of real arguments. An article in Time or Newsweek entitled "Worse than Waco" (referrring to the Branch Davidians) written by a former witness taught that Witnesses believe the "lake that burns with fire an sulphur" of Revelation was a literal place of torment akin to hell. My ex-fiancee's nut-job Baptist sister insisted JWs remove the Song of Solomon from their Bibles for being to sexual. Another hang-up she had was constantly talking about "salvation-through-works" this and "salvation-through-works" that. That's more of a doctrinal thing, of course. Let's not forget that Kevin Costner flick with the little JW boy whose religion forbade him to eat cotton candy because it was candy.
-
XQsThaiPoes
The problem is since JWs are born again christians they are putting themselves in a bad light too.
As far as scholarship most "christians" are wrong about the "authenicity" of JW docterines, if they are not simply restating what JW beliefs are/were. Many of them are gnostice doctrines that predate the Ante-Nicene fathers. And many of them are far from new or original. As in parts JWs are a very unimpressive and uninspired anthology of herrectical beliefs (but then every church that is not catholic/ greek orthodox is too), but as a whole a unique branch of traditional Christianity.
-
LittleToe
I don't think there's any intentional lying going about, that I'm aware of.
There's enough bad light (I like that expression, in this context - new light, old light, bad light!) without making stuff up.
All the early literature (NT included) shows that there was diversity of opinion and doctrine, and that that was ok. One of the main issues the "born again"-type religions have (and I hate that the phrase has become that kind of an expression) is that they claim exclusive truth and act like a cult.XQs:
The problem is since JWs are born again christians they are putting themselves in a bad light too.
???
Are you specifically talking about those claiming to be "anointed"? -
ellderwho
LT: I don't think there's any intentional lying going about, that I'm aware of.
There's enough bad light (I like that expression, in this context - new light, old light, bad light!) without making stuff up.Agreed, that best sums it up.
One really doesnt need to "make anything up" or "lie on" theres a wealth of Jw writings that contradict themselves into a group that cannot be taken seriously. (theologically)