Posts by IT Support

40

Governing Body talk in Holland - GB decisions are Jehovah's decisions

by truthseeker in

jw
friends

it seems that few are aware of it, but the whole talk here is posted.. http://e-jehovahs-witnesses.com/viewtopic.php?t=2337&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=45.

seems like holland is having problems with jw authority.. thought i'd paste a few comments from the board before pasting the talk, so you can get an idea of what is happening.... --------------------------.

thanks for the update from holland.

IT Support

Anyone know who this McKenzie guy is, anyway?

36

NOT ALLOWED TO RAPE....BUT

by tijkmo in

when i was df i decided to use the time wisely and read the insight books which is how i came across this

the armies of pagan nations often raped the women of conquered cities, but not so the victorious soldiers of israel.

nor were they permitted for a month to marry a captive woman.

IT Support

Euphemism,

in the other cases in Deuteronomy that I cited,

To recap, you quoted the following verses:

Deu 22:23,24 "In case there happened to be a virgin girl engaged to a man, and a man actually found her in the city and lay down with her, YOU must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones, and they must die, the girl for the reason that she did not scream in the city, and the man for the reason that he humiliated the wife of his fellowman. So you must clear away what is evil from your midst.

Deu 22:28,29 "In case a man finds a girl, a virgin who has not been engaged, and he actually seizes her and lies down with her, and they have been found out, the man who lay down with her must also give the girl?s father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days.

You then stated:

where the context makes clear that sex is being referred to, the KJV still translates the word as 'humbled'; so I wouldn't take their translation as a strong indicator.

As you say, in both instances the context clearly indicates that the 'humiliation' referred to is sex (even if not necessarily rape). The first verse (referring to adultery) specifically says that the man "lay down with her." The second verse (possibly fornication or rape) again very specifically says the man "lies down with her."

Whereas no such similar specific wording appears in Deuteronomy 21:14:

And it must occur that if you have found no delight in her, you must then send her away, agreeably to her own soul; but you must by no means sell her for money. You must not deal tyrannically with her after you have humiliated her.

Interestingly, in Deuteronomy 22:23, 24, the transliteration is "abased" but with a Strong's Concordance number of 6030 (also 'anah) which is defined as:

give account, ... (cause to, give) answer, ... cry, hear, Leannoth, lift up, say, X scholar, (give a) shout, sing (together by course), speak, testify, utter, (bear) witness.

I'm no scholar, so I'm probably missing something significant here. But, for the life of me, I can't see any connection between the definition and it's use in the verse. Verses 28 and 29 again use 6031.

If I get a chance to look up any scholarship on this verse, I'll post it here.

Thanks, that would be interesting.

22

My first anti-witness

by cheeseman in

jw
friends

the bell went this morning at 10am.

wtf is that?

lo and behold...two jw's at the door!!!.

IT Support

Cheeseman,

First, welcome to JWD. I hadn't noticed another fellow Scot on board! Are you back in Perth, or still in England?

This is the text of the tract you were given:

*** T-13 pp. 2-6 Why You Can Trust the Bible ***

Why You Can Trust the Bible

Some people say the Bible is unreliable, and their views have gained wide acceptance. Thus many today dismiss what the Bible says as untrustworthy.

On the other hand, what Jesus Christ said in prayer to God promotes trust: "Your word is truth." And the Bible itself claims to be inspired by God.?John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16.

What do you think about this? Is there sound basis for trusting the Bible? Or is there really evidence that the Bible is unreliable, that it contradicts itself and is inconsistent?

Does It Contradict Itself?

While some may claim the Bible contradicts itself, has anyone ever shown you an actual example? We have never seen one that could withstand scrutiny. True, there may appear to be discrepancies in certain Bible accounts. But the problem usually is lack of knowledge regarding details and circumstances of the times.

For example, some persons will draw attention to what they consider a discrepancy in the Bible, asking: ?Where did Cain get his wife?? The assumption is that Cain and Abel were the only children of Adam and Eve. But the assumption is based on a misunderstanding of what the Bible says. The Bible explains that Adam "became father to sons and daughters." (Genesis 5:4) Thus Cain married one of his sisters or possibly a niece.

Often critics are just looking for contradictions and so may declare: ?The Bible writer Matthew says that an army officer came to ask Jesus a favor, while Luke says that representatives were sent to ask. Which one is correct?? (Matthew 8:5, 6; Luke 7:2, 3) But is this really a contradiction?

When the activity or work of people is credited to the one who is actually responsible for it, a reasonable person does not claim a discrepancy. For example, do you consider a report to be in error that says a mayor built a road even though the actual building of the road was done by his engineers and laborers? Of course not! Similarly, it is not inconsistent for Matthew to say that the army officer made a request of Jesus but, as Luke writes, that such a request was made through certain representatives.

As more details are known, apparent discrepancies in the Bible disappear. History and Science
The historical accuracy of the Bible was once widely doubted. Critics, for example, questioned the existence of such Bible characters as King Sargon of Assyria, Belshazzar of Babylon, and the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. But recent discoveries have verified one Bible account after another. Thus historian Moshe Pearlman wrote: "Suddenly, sceptics who had doubted the authenticity even of the historical parts of the Old Testament began to revise their views."

If we are to trust the Bible, it must also be accurate in matters of science. Is it? Not long ago scientists, in contradiction of the Bible, asserted that the universe had no beginning. However, astronomer Robert Jastrow recently pointed to newer information that refutes this, explaining: "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same."?Genesis 1:1.

Men have also changed their views relative to the shape of the earth. "Voyages of discovery," explains The World Book Encyclopedia, "showed that the world was round, not flat as most people had believed." But the Bible was correct all along! More than 2,000 years before those voyages, the Bible said at Isaiah 40:22: "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth," or as other translations say, "the globe of the earth" (Douay), "the round earth." (Moffatt)

Thus the more humans learn, the greater the evidence is that the Bible can be trusted. A former director of the British Museum, Sir Frederic Kenyon, wrote: "The results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest, that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase of knowledge." Foretelling the Future
But can we really trust the Bible?s forecasts for the future, including its promises of a ?righteous new heavens and new earth?? (2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:3, 4) Well, what has been the Bible?s record of reliability in the past? Time and time again prophecies given even hundreds of years in advance have been fulfilled in exact detail!

For example, the Bible foretold the overthrow of mighty Babylon nearly 200 years before it happened. In fact, the Medes, who became aligned with the Persians, were named as the conquerors. And although Cyrus, the Persian king, had not even been born as yet, the Bible foretold that he would be prominent in the conquest. It said that Babylon?s protecting waters, the river Euphrates, "must be dried up," and that "the gates [of Babylon] will not be shut."?Jeremiah 50:38; Isaiah 13:17-19; 44:27?45:1.

These specific details were fulfilled, as the historian Herodotus reported. Further, the Bible foretold that Babylon would eventually become uninhabited ruins. And that is just what happened. Today Babylon is a desolate heap of mounds. (Isaiah 13:20-22; Jeremiah 51:37, 41-43) And the Bible is full of other prophecies that have had dramatic fulfillment.

What then does the Bible foretell concerning the present world?s system of things? It says: "The final age of this world is to be a time of troubles. Men will love nothing but money and self; they will be arrogant, boastful, and abusive; with no respect for parents, no gratitude, no piety, no natural affection . . . They will be men who put pleasure in the place of God, men who preserve the outward form of religion, but are a standing denial of its reality."?2 Timothy 3:1-5, The New English Bible.Surely, we are seeing the fulfillment of this now! But the Bible also foretells for "the final age of this world" these things: "Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages." In addition, "there will be great earthquakes, and in one place after another pestilences."?Matthew 24:7; Luke 21:11.

Indeed, Bible prophecies are undergoing fulfillment today! Well, then, what about yet-to-be-fulfilled promises, such as: "The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it," and, "They will have to beat their swords into plowshares . . . , neither will they learn war anymore"??Psalm 37:29; Isaiah 2:4.

?That?s just too good to be true,? some may say. But really, there is no reason for us to doubt anything that our Creator promises. His Word can be trusted! (Titus 1:2) By examining the evidence further, you will become ever more convinced of this.

Unless otherwise indicated, all Bible quotations are from the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. [Blurb on page 4]

"The results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest, that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase of knowledge"

12

BLOOD!

by woodland in

jw
friends

sorry to bring up this old chestnut, but?

have the jw?s changed their stance on blood transfusions?

i was talking to a lady at work that has jw relatives, and she said it was now a matter of conscience.

IT Support

Chia,

No way! It's still most definitely a DFing offense if you take blood.

Technically, it's actually a disassociation offence. WT reasons that, by taking this action, you are renouncing your association with their organisation.

Of course, there's no real difference between disfellowshipping and disassociation...

Woodland (warm welcome, here, by the way ) may have heard about the Bulgaria scandal.

See Blood Transfusions in Bulgaria.

36

NOT ALLOWED TO RAPE....BUT

by tijkmo in

when i was df i decided to use the time wisely and read the insight books which is how i came across this

the armies of pagan nations often raped the women of conquered cities, but not so the victorious soldiers of israel.

nor were they permitted for a month to marry a captive woman.

IT Support

(Apologies for the interruption: I was away yesterday.)

I have no argument that, in the OT, women were viewed as possessions, their status being no better than that of a slave. They were also brutal times and life in general was cheap and expendable. WT's pathetic justification of such OT practices is demeaning and evidence of their lack of any scholarship and understanding of the background to the Hebrew scriptures.

I understand where tijkmo's coming from and have felt the same way myself.

However, in specific relation to Deuteronomy 21:14, I was responding to the suggestion that the expression "after you have humiliated her" referred to rape (or forced sex--not that I can see any distrinction myself).

When I said that, while 'humiliated' could refer to rape, I did not think it necessarily had to do so in this specific instance (based purely on reading the passage), Euphemism responded:

I would respectfully disagree. My point was that the phrase is an idiom, similar to 'sleeping with' in contemporary English.

I'm sure you could find plenty of uses of the term 'sleep' that had no sexual significance. And yet, if I wrote "John wanted to marry Susan, and so he slept with her", no one would reasonably argue that 'sleep' did not signify sex in this case.

The context will often indicate whether a word is being used idiomatically. However, it seems that 'humiliated' was not actually used idiomatically in this verse.

My Hebrew Interlinear Bible transliterates 'anah as 'abased,' with a Strong's Concordance number of 6031. The English translation to the side is "because you have humbled her."

According to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, the meaning of 6031 'anah is:

abase self, afflict(-ion, self), ... chasten self, deal hardly with, defile, exercise, force, gentleness, humble (self), hurt, ravish, ... submit self, weaken, X in any wise.

So, 'anah can mean to '(sexually) force... ravish.' This is evident in, for example, the translation of Lamentations 5:11:

They ravished 14 the women in Zion, [and] the maids in the cities of Judah. [KJ]

However, this meaning is not automatic and, getting back to Deuteronomy 21:14 again, while the translators obviously had the option of translating the word this way, they decided that 'humbled,' or 'abased' was more accurate.

Although this sounds like I'm defending the WT position, I would repeat what I said earlier:

While I have no interest in trying to defend, or support, the inspiration of the Bible, I equally feel we shouldn't make it out to be worse than it already is!

36

NOT ALLOWED TO RAPE....BUT

by tijkmo in

when i was df i decided to use the time wisely and read the insight books which is how i came across this

the armies of pagan nations often raped the women of conquered cities, but not so the victorious soldiers of israel.

nor were they permitted for a month to marry a captive woman.

IT Support

tijkmo,

i just think its a bit rich making a big deal about not being like pagan nations who did rape.....and then offering this as an alternative

There's no denying they were brutal times. It's debatable which was the worse fate: being spared for forced marriage (which still happens today) or being slaughtered with the rest of the city...

36

NOT ALLOWED TO RAPE....BUT

by tijkmo in

when i was df i decided to use the time wisely and read the insight books which is how i came across this

the armies of pagan nations often raped the women of conquered cities, but not so the victorious soldiers of israel.

nor were they permitted for a month to marry a captive woman.

IT Support

Euphemism,

While what you say is a not unreasonable interpretation of the words, my only point is that it's not an essential one.

The verses you quoted are significant in that they reference one 'euphemistic' use of the word. However, there are dozens of verses which use the plain meaning of the word, e.g.:

Gen 16:6: Then Sarai began to humiliate [Hagar] so that she ran away from her.
Num 12:14: Then Jehovah said to Moses: "Were her father to spit directly in [Miriam's] face, would she not be humiliated seven days?
Ruth 1:21: Why should YOU call me Naomi, when it is Jehovah that has humiliated me and the Almighty that has caused me calamity?"

Going back to Deuteronomy, it seems that the humiliation referred to was possibly that of the captive woman's subsequent rejection by her captor, in that he had "found no delight in her."

And if she was sent away, it had to be in a manner " agreeably to her own soul." (A ccording to the NWT footnote: "Or "agreeably to (for) herself; where she wishes." LXXVg, "free."") In other words, not as a slave.

While I have no interest in trying to defend, or support, the inspiration of the Bible, I equally feel we shouldn't make it out to be worse than it already is!

36

NOT ALLOWED TO RAPE....BUT

by tijkmo in

when i was df i decided to use the time wisely and read the insight books which is how i came across this

the armies of pagan nations often raped the women of conquered cities, but not so the victorious soldiers of israel.

nor were they permitted for a month to marry a captive woman.

IT Support

Good point.

On the other hand, it still might not be rape...

36

NOT ALLOWED TO RAPE....BUT

by tijkmo in

when i was df i decided to use the time wisely and read the insight books which is how i came across this

the armies of pagan nations often raped the women of conquered cities, but not so the victorious soldiers of israel.

nor were they permitted for a month to marry a captive woman.

IT Support

Just a thought, but might the verses have a slightly different meaning?

When verse 14 says:

And it must occur that if you have found no delight in her, you must then send her away, agreeably to her own soul; but you must by no means sell her for money. You must not deal tyrannically with her after you have humiliated her.

I'm not saying this is so, but might this verse be referring to the end of the month's 'period of mourning,' before the Israelite 'had relations with her'?

41

Brits. Will you vote in next month's General Election?

by nicolaou in

as everyone had guessed, the election has been set for may 5th.

personally, this is my first opportunity 'post wt mind-control' to vote for our next government.

i don't suppose that i will - 40 years of 'neutrality' and non-involvement have rather flattened my desire to take part in political change.. how about you?

IT Support

Hey, City Fan,

Tory it is then!

Voting Tory?? Are you sure you're still not a Dub, then??

(Just kidding. )