Hi Agent,
Your argument sounds good to me!! I am a salesman and I
tend to believe whatever I hear and esp so what I read.
Can be a serious fault for sure. That is why I love this
board. Tuff to slack off here, esp. with a 'tude, more so
with a spurious argument.
Many many of the posters here are able to intellgently
dissect an argument find its valid points and of course
its fallacies. I always have had some doubts but wanted so
badly to believe. As you will read below it seems to me that
bible truths and esp. scriptual proofs just go 'round and
'round. IMHO for many of the scriptures quoted as "proof" of an
argument I can quote a scripture with an different/opposing
viewpoint. Help. (trying to open my semi closed brain)
I am just beginning to figure out for myself what
I can relie on and after some serious study I
discovered the more I studied the more confused
I became. Some of these arguments can go on
forever with an equal amount of "scriptual
proofs" on each side of the deabte when actually
there may be a third, or more, perfectly sane
explanation.
This is known as "Hobson's Choice Fallacy"
in logical thinking. Enter 'fallacy faq's'
into any search engine for a complete discussion
of all the retorical fallacy of which the CC of J W
makes extensive use,. Hobson's Choice is to present
your argument as either it's black or it's white.
Rarely true as so much of life is a wide expanse of grey,
but given in an emotional case seems very powerful. I fell
for this toooooo many times. I just wanted to believe!!!
I received "new lite" when I was doing a word for
word comparison of, WT literature, Emphatic Diaglott (E.D.)
vs. Kingdom Interlinear. I was studying in Act 20:20 and
discovered that the exact same greek word was rendered
as (big) houses in the E.D. and then rendered as "house to house"
in the K.I.
At that moment the little boy pulled his finger out of the dike and
I was washed away. One tiny, tiny flaw and it all tumbles down.
Further study showed that the K.I. "house to house" definition came
from the, are you ready for this?, are you sure?? really sure???
The despictable, error riddled, blah, blah, blah King James version.
God I hate when that happens!!!! I mentioned this to an elder,
fromer Bethei lite, and his retort was that "even the WT used to publish
the KJ version". no s..., but he didn't answer the question, of course.
So why does the "org"," society", etc. continue to "promote" this
blaaatant falsehood. "follow the money dummy, follow the money"
In the "United" book the Tower teaches me that the NT is written
primarily for the "annointed/144k, FDS (fem deordant spay) so Paul's
words were to them stating that he Paul taught them "pubikly",
in their temples and in their (big) houses ie: meeting halls. This is
almost universally accepted by mature/serious (genuine) bible
scholars. Not "door to door" rendering. (follow de $$$$$$).
Advertize (sell), Advertize (sell), Advertize (sell) the organization.
The WT used to
teach pubiclly up to 1975. They had real public lectures, records and
even radio broadcasts. All long gone, they have gone underground
even tho most people know them as d2d peeps that is not where the
growth comes from, its from networking almost exclusively. Another
poster was trying to compare the WT to a real corp. No way!!!
A real business would dump d2d business model ie: Fuller Brush, and adopt
the new "no cost/super efficient" media of the "net". Why not????
(just follow the $$$$$$$$$.)
So on one hand (black side) the NT is for the r&f as a "motovational stick" d2d ($$$$$$)
but (the white side) only written to the FDS when its time to go to H................
This is not Hobson's Choice (black vs white).
Another explanation came to me from a reading of the introduction of
both w4w interlinear translations that
states clearly that due to 300 - 400 years of missing continuity, hundreds
of slightly differing versions, hundreds of differing translations and of couse
human (see above ex) bias/agendas and that ole imperfection thing then
what we have today is an SWAG work. (Scientific Wild A.. Guess).
I forgot to mention the WT editors credit Jah for a "little help" on their work.
Jah does little jobs? I guess no job is too big or too small.
battman
of the washed (away) or (up) class
but not of the job class