the new testament tells us stories about miracles, people speaking in different languages by the holy spirit, jesus appearing to many of his disciples.
but, why this was only a first century phenomenom???.
here some reasoning: http://godisimaginary.com/i15.htm.
The New Testament tells us stories about miracles, people speaking in different languages by the holy spirit, Jesus appearing to many of his disciples. But, why this was only a first century phenomenom???.
Here some reasoning: http://godisimaginary.com/i15.htm
a lot of people, ex-jws, believers and unbelievers alike, think that jw's are just a somewhat kooky brand of christianity.
is it possible to "try and follow jesus" and not be christian?
what exactly makes someone a christian?
ray franz who gave us insight into the gb due to a crisis of conscience was an absolute moron, with absolutely no critical thinking skills whatsoever like all of us have.
i mean, to have a conscience based on some magic man in the sky.. how stupid can you be?
in search of christian freedom?
from the november 2015 watchtower:.
what have archaeologists found that shows that jericho was captured in a short time?.
joshua 6:10-15, 20 says that the israelite soldiers marched around the city of jericho once a day for six days.
if the siege of Jericho was short it does not follow that the Israelites were causing that siege. For example, if what we read in 1 Kings 6:1 were true, the Israelites ended their 40 years in the wilderness around the year 1407 BCE. However, radiocarbon measurements state that this siege was around 1550 BCE, so 150 years before the Israelites started to conquer cities. So, if there was a man called Joshua leading the Israelites after 1400 BCE, he arrived at Jericho when the city was already destroyed.
according to the newest watchtower:.
jehovah communicated with adam in the garden of eden, using human language.
god likely did so in an ancient form of hebrew.
as witnesses we were truly convinced that we knew the truth about the dead.
they were truly dead, and we often quoted ecclesiastes 9:4-6, our favourite proof text on that topic, to prove the point.
that text reads (just in case you've already forgotten it - smile), (from the niv):.
the last edition of the watchtower (study edition) says the following:.
alexander the great later conquered much of the ancient world, and common, or koine, greek became an international language.
so, in this verse the septuagint was not god's word according to matthew.
the last edition of the watchtower (study edition) says the following:.
alexander the great later conquered much of the ancient world, and common, or koine, greek became an international language.
so, in this verse the septuagint was not god's word according to matthew.
Much updated manuscript evidence is available in computer format, making it easier to analyze
the differences between manuscripts to determine which reading of the Hebrew or Greek text
is best supported. The New World Bible Translation Committee took advantage of these developments to study certain verses, resulting in some changes. (The Watchtower, Study Edition, December 2015, page 17)
Most of the modern scholars in textual criticism know that the chapter 21 of the Gospel of John was not of the original work, but a later addition (or orthodox corruption). The same corruption happens with John 4:2, Luke 3:23, and so on.
the last edition of the watchtower (study edition) says the following:.
alexander the great later conquered much of the ancient world, and common, or koine, greek became an international language.
so, in this verse the septuagint was not god's word according to matthew.
Hi Marvster:
the last edition of the watchtower (study edition) says the following:.
alexander the great later conquered much of the ancient world, and common, or koine, greek became an international language.
so, in this verse the septuagint was not god's word according to matthew.
In page 17, the Watchtower (Study Edition, December 2015), says:
For example, at 2 Samuel 13:21, the Greek Septuagint contains the equivalent of the words: “But he would not hurt the feelings of Amnon his son, because he loved him, for he was his firstborn.” Earlier versions of the New World Translation did not include these words because they are not in the Masoretic text. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls do contain these words, which are now included in the 2013 revision.
Note that The Watchtower has not shown a good argument for adding those Septuagint's words. They didn't include them "because they are not in the Massoretic text". However, we know that the Massoretic text does not contain, for instance, some chapters of the book of Daniel, but they appear in the Septuagint. Why doesn't the GB add them now?. Furthermore, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain writings of the Apocrypha, which appear in the Septuagint. This fact has been used in favor to Catholic Bible, which contains some of the Apocrypha.
