does anyone have an explanation about why the silver sword edition of the nwt removed god's name at exodus 34:14?
that verse is now different than the 1984 and 1970 versions of the nwt.
odd for an organization who believes that "god's name is of the utmost importance" as it says on page 195 of the bible teach book..
It used to be translated as: "For you must not prostrate yourself to another god, because Jehovah, whose name is Jealous, he is a jealous God"
You can't have God wandering around with lots of names if you're pushing the idea that he has only one and it's the most important thing in the bible.
so again we go to the quality of evidence used by the wt.. you can read the article here - https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no5-2016-october/did-jesus-really-exist/.
you see the wt refer to experts with quotes.
as is usually the case the credentials are not represented, just that they are experts (so take their word).
Amusingly, Grant wrote a book on the historical Jesus in which his conclusion is that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher expecting the imminent end of the world. Which didn't arrive. So when he says Jesus must have existed, his Jesus is not that of the WBTS and almost every premise they take for granted to make a conclusion is flawed by citing him as support.
When I asked about some of the issues I saw around gospels and accuracy, I got the 'holy spirit did it' answer and questions about the strength of my faith. Which is the way it always went with awkward questions. The bible is always 100% accurate and correct. Apart from the bits where the writer needs a bit of help from Brooklyn in conveying what he really meant to say...
so again we go to the quality of evidence used by the wt.. you can read the article here - https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no5-2016-october/did-jesus-really-exist/.
you see the wt refer to experts with quotes.
as is usually the case the credentials are not represented, just that they are experts (so take their word).
Saename wrote: Sort of true. Whilst there would be no problem if they wanted to use modern scholarship to explain Josephus' and Tacitus' references to Jesus, they would have to deal with certain inaccuracies in the Bible if they wanted to use the Bible itself to "prove" Jesus' existence.
The purpose of the article is to use scholarship, not internal bible logic, to try and prove Jesus existed though. Grant, for example, wrote on Tacitus and was one of many who believe/d that Tacitus' comments about 'Christians' isn't a later interpolation. But to open that can of worms is to introduce the idea that every text can be subject to such manipulation and so every one of those passages by ancient authors they cite must be buttressed against it. Josephus in particular has been subject to later editing, although there's a good case for something there being original to him. To introduce doubt to a world of black and white fundamentalism is what they are very keen to avoid.
So really it's very true that the WBTS' writers seem to exercise great care in the source materials they use because even the case for a historical Jesus opens up all kinds of questions. Perhaps the greatest amongst them being just how accurately something written decades after an event can relate what happened - as that applies not only to every non-biblical source for Jesus but also every biblical source too!
russian church welcomes shutdown of "moscow church of scientology".
moscow, july 1, interfax - the russian orthodox church has welcomed a ruling by the russian supreme court which yesterday upheld the legality of a shutdown of the "church of scientology of moscow".
"the upholding by the supreme court of the legality of the shutdown of the so-called church of scientology is seen as an important precedent demonstrating the state's determination not to recognize as religious those organizations that use people's religious feeling for malign purposes, " russian orthodox church spokesman vakhtang kipshidze told interfax-religion.the ruling in the scientologists' case is not a breach of the religious freedom since "it was proved in court that the very activity of this organization is an affront to human freedom as such," kipshidze said.the russian orthodox church regularly comes into contact with people whose membership in totalitarian sects left them deeply wounded spiritually and mentally, ruined their lives and happiness, the spokesman said.
Hey OC. Not surprised at all that the Orthodox Church were keen to comment. One of those times when a plague on both their houses is applicable. ;)
hopefully more financial trouble for them to come in uk !!.
jehovah's witnesses face £1m legal bill after young girl was sexually abused by one of its membersread more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/jehovah-s-witnesses-face-1m-legal-bill-after-young-girl-was-sexually-abused-by-one-of-its-members/story-29491614-detail/story.html#ixzz4dqkbhccq follow us: @leicester_merc on twitter | leicestermercury on facebookread more at http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/jehovah-s-witnesses-face-1m-legal-bill-after-young-girl-was-sexually-abused-by-one-of-its-members/story-29491614-detail/story.html#hel6rjg74wdprrdh.99.
Ridiculous that the WBTS forced the survivor to go through both the initial trial and then wait on an attempt to appeal. All because they refuse to accept that they have a duty of care and responsibility. Yet again a British court has pointed out the blazingly obvious to them. Caesar will not allow the men in Brooklyn to thumb their noses at the law just because they're a religion.
so again we go to the quality of evidence used by the wt.. you can read the article here - https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no5-2016-october/did-jesus-really-exist/.
you see the wt refer to experts with quotes.
as is usually the case the credentials are not represented, just that they are experts (so take their word).
I'm agnostic on a historical Jesus. But agree with bohm that the WBTS manage to make a real mush of even a decent attempt to prove it. I suppose the problem they have is that going to modern scholarship turns up lots of inconvenient issues which would need to be airbrushed out. Not least the problem that acknowledging the plausability of a historical Jesus says nothing about the accuracy of the gospel accounts.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-no5-2016-september/david-versus-goliath-real/.
the article ends with this:.
there is no real basis for doubting the truthfulness of this historical account.
There is no real basis for doubting the truthfulness of this historical account. It involves real people and real places.Other than the story as it's given in the bible is internally inconsistent and so at best only contains a kernel of truth?
welcome to the jwr members who have made it over to this forum.. for anyone who needs to grab info from jwr, the pages archived at the wayback machine may be useful.. these are the archived pages from april 14, 2016:.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160414040502/https://www.jehovahswitnessrecovery.com/forum/index.php.
Thanks OC.
i just tried to go to the site and there is a goodbye message.
i was a member there since 2010. i was really surprised.
i had just started posting there again after being away for a while.
Zebedee here. I was just really in the process of moving on myself, other than the odd post and contact with a few people who for practical reasons can't use social media to stay in touch. Posting here because I suspect others will be doing the same for similar reasons.
Otherwise, thanks to the staff and mods at jwr for what they put into the site. Would have been nice to have notice to just pass on details to a few people, and it's sad that so much knowledge is now gone, but so it goes. Good luck to everyone.
the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
Mephis, --You introduced the very interesting term "linear time" not much different from one dimensional time, or the "arrow of time". What I like Perry to consider is that time is more pervasive than that, Any entity in stationary time would not be subject to the law of cause and effect, that our movement through time subjects us to. Time not as a flowing river, but an endless ocean, through which we move, surf, To quote he discredited bible," --Hovered over the [endless]water--"
Well, yes, I used a term to describe the causal nature of our universe. If you wish to place God outside of that, fine, but no amount of wet metaphors are going to handwave away the consequences which follow from that. Nor conflate the idea with static time.
