Posts by opusdei1972

4

Jehovah's Witnesses Exposed in UK

by opusdei1972 in

this is a peruvian newspaper where today it has published that 100 witnesses were victims of abuse in the organization in uk and were silenced by the leadership.

may be those who know spanish here can translate it.

i think it is very important that these kind of news are being propagated.

opusdei1972

peruvians live in Perú, a south American country near the Pacific Ocean. They have more than 120 000 witness publishers.

4

Jehovah's Witnesses Exposed in UK

by opusdei1972 in

this is a peruvian newspaper where today it has published that 100 witnesses were victims of abuse in the organization in uk and were silenced by the leadership.

may be those who know spanish here can translate it.

i think it is very important that these kind of news are being propagated.

This is a peruvian newspaper where today it has published that 100 witnesses were victims of abuse in the organization in UK and were silenced by the leadership. May be those who know Spanish here can translate it. I think it is very important that these kind of news are being propagated.

http://larepublica.pe/mundo/1217771-reino-unido-testigos-de-jehova-silenciaron-y-amenazaron-a-su-victimas-de-pedofilia

20

A serious question for any who believe in any God of any religion who think God is interested in humans.

by smiddy in

the world health organization states that in the year 2015 ,5.9 million children died under the age of 5 years of age.. in 2010 the death rate for children under the age of 5 years of age was 7.6 million.

thats over 13 million in just 2 years .

i dont think you need to be a rocket scientist to conclude that since mankind has been on the earth for however long you want to believe and i`m just going on a conservative estimate of 6000 years by the above figures i quoted their would be billions of children under 5 yearsof age that would have died.

opusdei1972

There is no such a loving god in the human sense. There are many people who unjustly die, so it is impossible to reconcile that with the idea of a god having human compassion. If a personal god exists, he simply is not worry about any individual life, so that god makes no sense, he is a monster. In fact, the Christian God is a human invention, also, this god is rather different of the OT YHWH. Theists people should redefine the idea of "God".

17

Question on the sun created in the fourth day

by opusdei1972 in

in the first day elohim created light, and it was day and night in the first day.

then in the fourth day he created the sun, the moon and the stars.

of course, it did not actually happen, but what did the writer have in mind?.

opusdei1972

David_Jay: I think the Bible is indeed an interesting set of books to study the ancient thoughts. The writers were inspired in their idea of "God", but not by God in the fundamentalists sense. Of course, I admit that their idea of an invisible god was superior than those pagan gods, though it seemed to happen in a uniform way after the exile. However, in the Bible you can find fundamentalist statements, like "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ?" (1 John 2:22). I see that early Christians were like Jehovah's Witnesses in that they thought they had the Truth. They still think that Jesus is the only way to get eternal life. I currently believe that these statements must be relaxed. In case of a future existence (I ignore if there is something more than this life), I don't think that it would depend on our system of beliefs.

17

Question on the sun created in the fourth day

by opusdei1972 in

in the first day elohim created light, and it was day and night in the first day.

then in the fourth day he created the sun, the moon and the stars.

of course, it did not actually happen, but what did the writer have in mind?.

opusdei1972

As I see, the Old Testament is not an inoffensive set of books. It says that God saw something special in a particular race, and it tells us myths that have been considered for many generations as the Word of God. As has been pointed out above, most of the books have a theological agenda rather than containing facts. Of course, these were ancient guys, but today it is unacceptable to teach that a divine being inspired these books.

17

Question on the sun created in the fourth day

by opusdei1972 in

in the first day elohim created light, and it was day and night in the first day.

then in the fourth day he created the sun, the moon and the stars.

of course, it did not actually happen, but what did the writer have in mind?.

opusdei1972

I also found an interesting answer on how could the writer of Genesis 1 could thought that there was light, day and night in the first creative day without creating the sun and the stars (knowing that these were created in the fourth day). So here I quote what I found:

The view of light and darkness as physical entities that cause day and night can be found in at least one ANE text as well. In a fragmentary Sumerian tablet (NBC 11108) from Nippur during the Ur III period (21st cent. BCE), we find the following:

When Anu, the lord, made heaven shine, made earth dark… Heaven and earth he held together as one… Day did not shine; in night, heaven stretched forth. Earth, bringing forth plant life did not glow on its own…[11]

The text describes the Sumerian high god Anu’s creation of the world. When Anu separates heaven and earth, the heavens shine but the earth does not. In other words, when the heavens and earth were combined in the primordial mush, there was perpetual night. By separating the heavens from the earth, Anu also separates light from darkness.

Wayne Horowitz notes the parallel with Genesis:

In NBC 11108:8, as in Genesis, where day exists before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, the heavens are conceived to have had their own glow, irrespective of the presence of luminaries. [12]

17

Question on the sun created in the fourth day

by opusdei1972 in

in the first day elohim created light, and it was day and night in the first day.

then in the fourth day he created the sun, the moon and the stars.

of course, it did not actually happen, but what did the writer have in mind?.

opusdei1972

I have read an interesting explanation that makes sense. The creation story of Genesis 1 was intended to emphasize that every creation was "good". The author insists after the end of each "creative day", that for God it was good. So this seems to have been written in the babylonian exile in opposition of the babylonian dualism which believed in some evil creations. Then an editor joined the story of chapter 2 with this of chapter 1 in spite of the contradictions.

17

Question on the sun created in the fourth day

by opusdei1972 in

in the first day elohim created light, and it was day and night in the first day.

then in the fourth day he created the sun, the moon and the stars.

of course, it did not actually happen, but what did the writer have in mind?.

opusdei1972

In the first day Elohim created light, and it was day and night in the first day. Then in the fourth day he created the sun, the moon and the stars. How could it be ?. Of course, it did not actually happen, but what did the writer have in mind?. The Watchtower Society tries to avoid this unscientific ancient view of Genesis by telling us that the sun was indeed created before the first day. So the Society says in a footnote:

In the description of what happened on the first “day,” the Hebrew word used for light is ʼohr, light in a general sense; but concerning the fourth “day,” the word used is ma·ʼohrʹ, which refers to the source of light.

I don't think that this argument on Hebrew's grounds is correct. I think it is misleading. Is there any scholar in Hebrew here to analyze the above argument?

On the other hand, Richard Elliot Friedman says:

People have questioned whether the first three days are twenty-four hour days since the sun is not created until the fourth day. But light, day, and night are not understood here to depend on the existence of the sun, so there is no reason to think that the word “day” means anything different on the first two days (sic) than what it means everywhere else in the Torah. People’s reason for raising this is often to reconcile the biblical creation story with current evidence of the earth’s age. But it is better to recognize that the biblical story does not match the evidence than to stretch the story’s plain meaning in order to make it fit better with our current state of knowledge.

Also Friedman, said:

Note that daylight is not understood here to derive from the sun. The text understands the light that surrounds us in the daytime to be an independent creation of God, which has already taken place on the first day. The sun, moon, and stars are understood here to be light sources—like a lamp or torch, only stronger. Their purpose is also to be markers of time: days, years, appointed occasions

50

No updated Watctower's articles on Evolution

by opusdei1972 in

as far as i know, the "creation" book is out of print ?, am i right?.

well, i was searching for new watchtower articles trying to debunk, for instance, human evolution.

so, i did my homework, for the first time, so as to read past and updated papers and books on human evolution.

opusdei1972

The most absurd thing is that the Watchtower Society still shows in its literature (their Insight Encyclopedia), that Adam was created 6000 years ago:

Finally, after 930 years, most of which was spent in the slow process of dying, Adam returned to the ground from which he was taken, in the year 3096 B.C.E., just as Jehovah had said.—Ge 4:8-26; 5:5-24; Jude 14; see LAMECH No. 2. (Insight, Volume 1, Adam)

This is, of course, unacceptable in this XXI century. Neanderthals disappeared 40 000 years ago, and the overlapping with modern humans is just about 5000 years. so there were modern humans more than three decades before the mythical Adam.

50

No updated Watctower's articles on Evolution

by opusdei1972 in

as far as i know, the "creation" book is out of print ?, am i right?.

well, i was searching for new watchtower articles trying to debunk, for instance, human evolution.

so, i did my homework, for the first time, so as to read past and updated papers and books on human evolution.

opusdei1972

I am no more a believer, but I have to admit that the Catholic Church has improved their understanding of some Bible texts. The Catholic Church, in practice, now admits that some Bible accounts can't be taken seriously as historical facts. Nevertheless, Jehovah's Witnesses insist in believing with literalism in Adam and Eve and the Flood's story. Let us read:

"Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning."

(THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH, pontifical Biblical Commission Presented on March 18, 1994 )