King Solomon, right. But you can't have a circle anywhere near a flat surface. So it stands to reason that the reference to the circle meant a sphere because a circle does not have any corners. So, corners must be metaphorical. I use the term "corners of the Earth" even though I know better.
Posts by Etude
-
114The Bible-- Full of Errors And Inconsistencies?
by Recovery ini noticed in the "magic" thread many former jw's no longer adhere to the bible as the unerring and accurate word of god.
if you feel this way, can you please list any specific reasons/arguments as to why not.
this thread isn't for debating purposes, but simply for listing.
-
-
-
114
The Bible-- Full of Errors And Inconsistencies?
by Recovery ini noticed in the "magic" thread many former jw's no longer adhere to the bible as the unerring and accurate word of god.
if you feel this way, can you please list any specific reasons/arguments as to why not.
this thread isn't for debating purposes, but simply for listing.
-
-
Etude
Recovery: Here's one for now:
“and Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” Matthew 1:16
“Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli.” Luke 3:23
In horizontal references between Mathew and Luke, both lineages are attributed to Joseph, not one to him and another to Mary, as some would argue. Suggesting one is the lineage of Mary is a good guess but has no substantiation. Others offer a different explanation to reconcile Joseph’s two apparent fathers: that Heli died childless and Jacob married his widow, begetting Joseph. But that's still just a good guess. That some generations are skipped in the horizontal accounts is not that big an issue. That they diverge quite a bit is a more substantial problem. That they ultimately don’t agree and can’t be easily explained is the real issue.
Finkelstein "Nowhere in the Bible is the earth described as 'spherical.' " Yes it is, even though that doesn't mean that whomever wrote Genesis believed that.
Job 26:10 --
"He has described a circle upon the face of the waters, To where light ends in darkness." NWT
"He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness." NSV
"He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters At the boundary of light and darkness." NASB
"He has drawn a circle on the waters at the boundary where the day and night come together." KJ 2000
"He hath traced a fixed circle over the waters, unto the confines of light and darkness" Darby BT
Proverbs 8:27 --
"When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep" NWT
"When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep," ESV
"When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep," NASB
"When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he drew a circle upon the face of the depth:" KJ 2000
Isaiah 40:22 --
"There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a ?ne gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell," NWT
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" NIV
"God sits above the circle of the earth. The people below seem like grasshoppers to him! He spreads out the heavens like a curtain and makes his tent from them." NLT
"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;" EST
ETC.
-
398
Jwfacts, Why Do You Equate Miracles With Magic?
by Recovery ini have a question for the author of the website jwfacts.
as i was reading the sparlock article, i couldn't help but notice something seriously wrong:.
"the bible abounds in vivid fantasy, such as its many celestial descriptions, or the portrayal of warring kingdoms with imaginary beasts.. the sparlock message is confusing, as much for an adult as for a child, as the bible shows that god's followers practice magic, even if they are usually referred to as miracles.
-
-
Etude
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke. I imagine what our world would seem like to someone from the first century. Some of the stuff we have and can do today, would make Jesus walking on water like a street side show.
-
398
Jwfacts, Why Do You Equate Miracles With Magic?
by Recovery ini have a question for the author of the website jwfacts.
as i was reading the sparlock article, i couldn't help but notice something seriously wrong:.
"the bible abounds in vivid fantasy, such as its many celestial descriptions, or the portrayal of warring kingdoms with imaginary beasts.. the sparlock message is confusing, as much for an adult as for a child, as the bible shows that god's followers practice magic, even if they are usually referred to as miracles.
-
-
Etude
Wow, I considered the discussion (not the subject matter) interesting enough to read all posts from beginning to end. Even though, I've been on this board for over 10 years now, I'm still discovering how many really smart people participate here.
Naturally, I have a few choice comments for Recovery and hope that I'm not repeating what others have said, what others have said. Even if I do, even if I do, it may be good so that you, Recovery, can start thinking on what others are trying to say, while I put it differently, and start to prick your way out of that self-referent bubble that surrounds you.
Your analogy about the red cars floored me. You say they're identical in every way except that one runs on gas and the other on a battery. Then faced with the idea that the only difference is their power source, you object to someone else's comment by saying: "But they are not the same car"! (post 133) Huh? You do realize that they can't be the "same" car, otherwise they would occupy the exact same space at the exact same time? I don't think anyone was trying to suggest that. Obviously you obfuscate the corresponding parts of your analogy. I think cognisonance pointed that out more than once.
If you'd thought a little deeper you'd realize that what powers them is the same: energy. The difference is that (to shorten the parallel) one is "magic-gas" and the other "miraculous-electricity". They can't be the same car simply by virtue of their appearance if one car was the "magic" model and the other car the "miracle" model. But I hope I'm not taxing your imagination if I say that for all practical purposes the cars are the same in the sense that they both appear and function (ride) the same. You can equate one car to Pharaoh's priests summoning frogs out of the river and the other car to Aaron summoning frogs out of the river: one is powered by gas and the other by electricity and yet both acts (cars) accomplish the exact same thing. See where I'm going?
Your definitions of one or the other, magic and miracle, are but corollaries (in the parallel you posed) for the definition of gas and electricity. The definitions you referenced for each term -- magic and miracle -- are only different ways to describe things that are both supernatural and not readily available for purchase at your local 7-Eleven. Granted, one for the most part is associated with negative or nefarious sources while the other is more positive and apparently good. But that's just one source. Other's here have made the connection in the supernaturalism of the two.
But if you really put yourself in the place of someone neutral, as some sort of third-party observer, as a visitor to Egypt when the frogs came out of the river or when everyone's staffs (staves) became flaccid and turned to snakes, as an independent observer, you would not have known the nature or the source of the event but for the fact that someone told you. If you are so inclined, you'll believe the Hebrews if they tell you. If not, you'll believe the Egyptians because they were also successful. The real point is that the source is arbitrary, while the events are indistinguishable. I realize that for you they are not and the whole thing is quite simple. But for a critically thinking and impartial individual, if we can't be sure, it's OK to say "I don't know" and leave it at that.
Let's face it, since you're taking the word of a tome with many assailable accounts, unless you can explain them all away, you may finally conclude with respect to miraculous or magical events that if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. You do realize that I'm not giving you an answer to the JWfacts reliability issue (I've never been there) or am even arguing about the veracity of Jehovah or am talking about whether Godzilla really stomped all over Tokyo. But one thing is clear: that even if this one issue in which you are clearly fallible were in a Bizarro world to be found valid, you cannot ignore all the other problems that exist with the teachings of the WTBTS and it would be very difficult to explain the changing stances that the JWs present in their literature. Hence, I'm not sure why you're hung up on this one particular issue.
If you're going to make a distinction between a miracle and magic by what is accomplished, then you need to state what point turning staffs into snakes and summoning frogs from the river make. If God wanted to make a point and give people chances to show their colors, I would think that He's one manipulating dude for putting people through the ringer when He knows exactly what they're going to do. Otherwise, God is just showing off. That does not speak well of good intent to create a miracle as opposed to the poor Egyptian priests using magic to simply keep up with Moses and Aaron and prevent their land from being devastated. Sure, I'm going to the other extreme just to prove a point.
Christ Alone, you said something interesting about evil that caught my attention: "The way I look at it is evil is not a thing, it's a mere [degradation] of what is good." (post 286) Then by the same reasoning, "good" is not a thing either. I think you're right in the sense that they are not so tangible or even quantifiable at times. But I disagree in the sense that they, good and evil, are not entities as much as I consider them "states" of things or of acts as much as we can say something is good or bad. I could say that the water temperature in my tub is bad (evil) because it's so hot it will peel the skin off my ass if sit in it, not mention other more important parts. The same water temperature is good if I use it to wash and sterilize my dishes.
In every sense of the word, the Bible determines us (although via questionable reasons or lack thereof) for what evil is. It's not evil or bad to prevent your 3-year old from going near the top of the stairs in your house. Heck, you do it. But you have determined for him or her that it is bad and wrong because you say so (for good reasons). So, it was OK for Lots daughters to commit incest but then later it was not OK for others. In the O.T. it was not OK to have a wet dream but it's inconsequential in the N.T. That means that there is a context to what is determined as evil or not. If you believe in the Bible, you either perceive it for yourself or you let others interpret that for you. The reality is that when religious organizations spiritually castigate people or cause untold pain for others, as the WTBTS has done, you start to realize that evil (in a religious sense) is relative and very subjective. A society like ours has different rules (or at least different foundations) for what is considered evil.
Recovery , you said: "Hence, supernatural showings such as a human flying, a talking orge [I think you meant to say ogre], or a princess being turned into a frog are not objectionable from the Bible's viewpoint" and "Dressing up as demons and ghosts and devils for Halloween = Fantasy. Does not attribute power to evil REAL evil spirits." Are you serious? So what are you going to dress up as next Halloween? I dare you to put that princess/frog thing to the test and see how fast you're helped out of the Kingdom Hall if you try to argue it. Pahleeeeze, many of us spent quite a bit of time on the inside and have a good deal of certainty about how it would go down.
I would love for you to offer more insight into your thinking because its only bound to sharpen mine as well as give me an opportunity to hear what others here have to say that intelligent and thoughtful. That's an admission that in spite of being wrong, you do make a compelling argument. That's what makes it interesting.
-
150
They will be DFing me soon for apostasy...
by RayPublisher inwell i figured i should give you all an update.
they will be dfing me soon for apostasy.
it is not a huge surprise and i am not afraid nor "shaking in my boots", however i will admit it is stressful right now.
-
-
Etude
Wow, man. You have some major guacamoles! What I mean is that you went in with significant resolve and immovable intent. Many people would have walked away or not attended, as some recommended to you. Yet, your knowledge and sincerity didn't allow them to "get away with it", in a sense. I can see how an ordinary man full of conviction can accomplish extraordinary things. It may not seem extraordinary to most outsiders who don't realize how daunting it is to address that type of "Star Chamber" in a subtle and non-adversarial manner. It takes a lot of will to combat the years of fear and awe such a confrontation makes many Jehovah's Witnesses feel.
Whether the members of the committee that placed you in judgement admit it or not or whether they actually feel it or not, the very act of summoning you to their presence is an act of power and control. I'm so glad you stood up to them and addressed them with their own weapons. I hope you address your wife (ex-wife?) in the same manner. If she's going to accuse you, have her put up. Without evidence (unless she gets people to lie for her), she can't actually ascertain abuse. It will end up a he-said-she-said situation.
I really do hope the best for you because it's obvious that, in spite of what's transpired, you maintain a good heart. I hope you don't confuse forgiveness with doing everything you can to expose them and stop them. I mean that in a personal sense, because it's obvious that by publicizing this event as you have, you're already doing what you can let the world know.
I thank you for what you've presented and for your courage and I hope the very best healing for you especially in the recognition that the very thing that allowed you to remain with the WTBTS for so many years, your sense of spirituality, is still vital and in need, even without the Bible.
-
78
I'm going to see 2016 Tomorrow Morning!
by Farkel inyep.
together with my liberal friend!
i couldn't believe that movie is playing in no less than ten theatres in cowtown where i live.. i just ordered my copy of "the amateur" and it was only $4.95.
-
-
Etude
I would love to see the film. However, based on the reviews and inaccuracies I've seen about it, I'm going to let someone else plunk money for it. I wonder why the conspiracy mongers don't explore the other half of Obama? After all, he was raised by white grandparents that influenced him to think that via education and opportunity (which they might have provided via access to the white community), one can advance in life enough to be president. Imagine that!
-
26
Here are the pics of the 2012 Gilead Graduation, etc........
by Iamallcool inhttp://andreandclaudia.blogspot.com/.
-
-
Etude
GMAFB! "Do not become excessively wise"? How wise should one be? Just, sufficiently wise? And what WTF would that be? Is there an implication that we should not question or argue some issues? Yeah, that I can believe if one starts to reason properly after being trained so well to become a missionary.
One can never be too wise. If one is wise to begin with, one would learn to listen and shut the hell up when necessary, which is problably what Herold Corkren actually meant: Don't show off how smart you are. A wise man doesn't display his wisdom around as a banner, which is something many Witlesses like to do. Knowledge? Now, that's a different thing. One can be knowledgeable and be cluless about what the implications of facts are. But a wise person will always be humbled by how much s/he doesn't know.
-
68
Have you met anyone on the Governing Body?
by Christ Alone ini posted on another thread about a couple of my experiences of meeting the governing body while i was in brooklyn.
i wanted to see if anyone else had any experiences along these same lines.
i met most of the ones that were current during the 2001-2003 years.
-
-
Etude
Christ Alone, holy guacamole! I had forgotten about that! Yes, it's true. However, I distinctly rememer the elevator ride. I also remember that when I moved to the Farm in Wallkill Co., I had to get a dispensation to ride the elevator due to a foot injury. Was there a limit in Brooklyn to the floor level or where there some other exceptions? Man, I'm feel nostalgic wishing I could still climb 7 flights of stairs again.
-
64
I Do Not Think Everyone That is a JW Wastes Their Life
by Magwitch inmy 97 year old grandmother died last week.
she was actually born and raised a jw.
her mother (my great grandmother) was a russelite.
-
-
Etude
I'm a bit late into this, but found all the discussion very interesting. It made me think how far back and how widely we would impose our blame on people to the point of not being forgiving. If anyone thinks for a minute that it's only the Jdubs that have caused so much pain and are therefore responsible as individuals, think again. If we apply that view everywhere, we would condemn with the same intensity the majority of the world's population who adhere to one belief or another, religious or not. Yes, it's likely that we all bear some responsibility for inflicting some pain on others, whether we realize it or not. In fact, I know that (if we were all ex-JWs), we will never shake our personal responsibility for the people we converted, or the people we shunned, or the people we so self-righteously condescended upon -- that means you jookbeard and anyone else who still blames those others that stayed in. We should condemn the act or belief and not the individuals.
-
68
Have you met anyone on the Governing Body?
by Christ Alone ini posted on another thread about a couple of my experiences of meeting the governing body while i was in brooklyn.
i wanted to see if anyone else had any experiences along these same lines.
i met most of the ones that were current during the 2001-2003 years.
-
-
Etude
I met Fred and Raymond Franz, although I really knew Raymond much better. Also, Dan Sydlic and Nathan Knorr. I had decided that I admired Fred Franz due to a story someone told me about him riding in an elevator and singing "Jingle Bells". Everyone was surprised because it was considered a Christmas song. Somehow he explained that there was not one reference in the song about Christmas. I thought: "Well, that's unbiased thinking and a bit out-of-the-box", hence my admiration. Later, I came to realize that he was protected and revered by Knorr for his biblical interpretations. I point to him as the main protagonist for starting the 1975/Armageddon speech that cause so much grief. He is the main reason Knorr wanted all Bethelites to remain single, something he did not prescribe for himself.
Raymond was a dear man. I could sense his dedication and even some cautiousness when dealing with some subjects. He endeavored to be knowledgeable. My impression was that in most instances, his wife Cynthia was reserved and relatively quiet compared to him. But I could also tell that she was no slouch and was very intelligent.
I thought that Dan Sydlic was a good guy. But, I watched him revel a little at the fact that he became much more significant after Knorr was not in charge anymore and the Governing Body, of which he became a member of, took over.
Knorr was a tyrant and an ass. He gave a few of us "new boys" a condescending look while riding in an elevator as we talked about the experience of the first night watch at the Squibb building. It's possible that we were overly enthusiastic, but I didn't think it deserved the scowling look. I thought he would understand our situation being new and ignorant. I don't know how many others noticed it or even if they were aware that he was in the elevator, but I sure as hell did. It turns out he had very specific ideas of how a bethelite should act.
On another occasion, he gave me a "killer" look (I think that but for the briefness of the occurrence he would have turned around a said something to me). I was rushing on a Saturday morning from the Towers Hotel (back before it was purchased and renovated) to take a call from a family member at the main building. In those days, the Bethel front desk would get a call and they would have to make another call to the "Towers" desk who would in turn ring the hall phone (we only had a few floors then) and someone would come knocking at your door. I ran out of the Towers Hotel and was still trying to put my coat on as I reached the front of the 107 building. As we passed each other, Knorr gave me a disapproving scowl, which I duly noted. I think that if he had turned around and said something to me, I would have unloaded on him, despite the consequences. I had worked the night before, was in bed when I got the call and was not in the mood for any crap.