I think the classicist wrote a pretty good refutation.
The saddest thing to me is that all this angst and anger toward the Bible is really a result of people who claim to follow it ignoring it on the most important points. The WTBTS is a prime example of such conduct. Although Jesus is recorded telling his disciples not to be dogmatic and legalistic like certain Jews in his day, the WTBTS ignores what he said and embraces legalism (like the lawyer who led it down that path after Russell's death) anyway with the same tragic results. As a result, the Bible itself is cursed all day long by many who once were in that organization. It is not the Bible that is the problem. It is power hungry men who misuse it!
I have a copy of the majority text with footnotes noting the differences between different manuscripts and can say that the comments on the differences mainly consisting mainly of spelling and word order differences (since Greek is largely an inflected language, the word order is not always so important as in our own language) are true. The inerrancy is not in the technical details, rather, it is in the message of a faith based on love which organizations like the WTBTS and the Catholic Church (although I'll give the RCC it's due by acknowledging that it considers the Bible as only ONE source for it's truth, not the ONLY source) largely ignore. Such organizations ignore that message which permeates the New Testament because it is very inconvienient to their agendas of increasing their power.
In closing, don't throw out the baby just because the water is dirty. Just because power-mad men misuse God's word for their own nefarious end doesn't mean that it is neither inspired nor of good value. It only means that such men are all the more evil for their doing so.
Forscher
JoinedPosts by Forscher
-
79
DID YOU KNOW THIS about the BIBLE?
by Terry inthe oldest manuscripts are not considered the most reliable.. there are no "autograph" texts.
none.. there are no "original" manuscripts.. no two manuscripts agree.. the bible as we know it only came together in the form it now holds because certain men decided it should do so.. neither jesus nor his apostles or disciples carried bibles.. the apostle paul didn't carry a bible and none of his letters were in any of the scrolls considered holy scripture at the time he was preaching and forming christian theology as it is now understood to be.. largely, what the bible is today, is the result of certain men with certain agendas who had the authority to make their project happen.
they also had the power to destroy writings which did not agree with their agenda.
-
-
Forscher
-
4
Russell on "new light."
by Forscher inin view of the recent threads about "new light", i thought you might like to see the gem recently posted by rr144 on his the forum he administers: .
"if we were following a man undoubtedly it would be different with us; undoubtedly one human idea would contradict another and that which was light one or two or six years ago would be regarded as darkness now: but with god there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, and so it is with truth; any knowledge or light coming from god must be like its author.
a new view of truth never can contradict a former truth.
-
-
Forscher
In view of the recent threads about "new light", I thought you might like to see the gem recently posted by RR144 on his the forum he administers:
"If we were following a man undoubtedly it would be different with us; undoubtedly one human idea would contradict another and that which was light one or two or six years ago would be regarded as darkness now: But with God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, and so it is with truth; any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New light" never extinguishes older "light," but adds to it. If you were lighting up a building containing seven gas jets you would not extinguish one every time you lighted another, but would add one light to another and they would be in harmony and thus give increase of light: So is it with the light of truth; the true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one for another.
"Therefore, in mentioning grounds of our confidence that we are in the shining path under the leading of the Spirit, we mention first that the tendency of present truth is to produce the proper fruit of the spirit, of which love is the chief. The tendency of our growth in knowledge is to growth in grace. "He that hath this hope in him purifieth himself even as he (Jesus) is pure." Our pathway has been one of increase of light in harmony with former light. Thus we have been led to increased confidence in our leader." Zion's Watch Tower, Feb. 1881, page 3
Interesting, isn't it?
Forscher -
34
Christian answers to the Atheist Bible: Presupposing your beliefs
by Rex inhere is a very insightful article from ken ham....at the end is my own testimony in capsule form.
when the person you talk to on creation insists that you leave the bible out of it, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.
(my note: you've heard it this way, "religion does not speak on science at all.
-
-
Forscher
Tetrapod said:
"scientists do not start with a presupposition. they intend to find knowledge, not simply to confirm their existing position."
Not true Tetrapod. In my research classes at the university level that kind of thinking was discouraged. We were taught to theorize based on what others (those who went before) observed and then to set out to prove those theories. Confirming the existing point was the point, not the pursuit of knowledge independent of that.
Tetrapod said:
"creationists set out to prop up their existing position. this is not science. this is religion."
My experience is that evolutionists do much the same thing. They start out with the position that there is no creator other than pure chance and work to prop up that position. That is not science either.
Forscher -
11
DNR - any experiences?
by talesin inafter reading another thread, i got thinking.
there is something i would like to talk to a lawyer about, but for now, i am interested to know if anyone has any personal / work-related experiences with do not resuscitate orders (dnrs)?.
if you work in a hospital, how effective is one?
-
-
Forscher
My baby brother, who is a currently practicing nurse, just came over for a visit. I asked him about the current practices involving DNR's and boy did I get an earful! He informed me that DNR's are nothing like they used to be. It seems that they are being used in a way to bring in euthanasia through the back door. He told me that he was not surprised to hear the experience of HL, although he'd not seen it carried to quite the extreme that HL reported.
My brother told me that when a DNR is ordered, it pretty much means that staff will cease taking care of the patient. They will not give pain medicine. They will not give food through nasal tubes etc... The reasoning is that they or their family don't want them to live, so why bother? Of course, if the person ever becomes lucid they can rescind the order. That is, if anybody bothers to notice that are they awake. I was thoroughly disgusted!
He told me that he is going to execute a living will specifying in detail how he wants to be cared for in the event that he cannot do so for himself. He also advised me to do so for myself.
Word to the wise1
Forscher -
11
DNR - any experiences?
by talesin inafter reading another thread, i got thinking.
there is something i would like to talk to a lawyer about, but for now, i am interested to know if anyone has any personal / work-related experiences with do not resuscitate orders (dnrs)?.
if you work in a hospital, how effective is one?
-
-
Forscher
Wow, Horrible Life, that's the first time I've ever heard of a DNR being used to deny hydration to a CONSCIOUS, COMPETENT patient!
I used to work as a nurse. In my experience, a DNR, or no code, only applied to an unconscious patient who could not make a decision for themself at the time. Generally, a DNR order was ordered by a doctor, either with the permission of the family, power of attorney, living will, or by previous permission from the patient. A DNR only applies to extraordinary means of life saving in a critical situation. By extraordinary means of life saving, I mean measures such as, cardiac resussitation, pulmonary ventilation, and similar measures. I've NEVER seen it used to deny food and/or water to patient. The sort of thing that we all saw happen with Terri Schiavo generally requires a court order (as happened with her), and I've never even seen that done where I live to a person in a persistive vegetative state like happened to her.
Usually, such orders were given in cases where a person had multiple organ failure which required them to be on respirators and the family wanted to do a little CYA. Even then, they had to be brain-dead. That was why I, for one, found the whole Schiavo thing shocking.
I've been out of the nursing field for a little while, so i can't speak for what the current practice (last ten years or so) is. But I hope that helps you some.
Forscher -
6
My dad wants to put my name on his Blood card
by lv4fer inmy dad called me up yeterday to ask if he could put me on his blood card.
this is bizarre.
he just recently moved here and doesn't know very many people.
-
-
Forscher
<div>It depends on what capacity he wants you named on his card. My father-in-law has his non-Dub son listed on his card as his power of attorney in the event of his incapacitation (the copies of my inlaw's cards sent to my wife appear to be durable polwer of attorneys in a shortened form as well). And My father-in-law is an elder! So if he wants you in that capicity and your are willing to respect his whishes as to treatment, then apparently is no problem. What you will have to decide is whether you are willing to act in that capacity or not.
<br></br><br></br>I know that the WTBTS used to insist that JW's be used as witnesses to the signature on the old blood cards, but there is no reason why any other person can't be used in that capacity. The blood card is, after all, a legal document and any person of reasonable capacity can witness a signature.
<br></br><br></br>So, find out in what capacity he wants you named on the card and do as you will.</div> -
23
Witnesses Sell Stolen Furniture to Feed Circuit Overseer
by TMS ini'm nena, the wife of tms, who used to post in this forum.
i'm posting a letter i wrote to my younger sister yesterday.
i caught her and my one-year older sister selling my furniture at a garage sale.
-
-
Forscher
Sorry to hear about your sad experience Nena. All I can say is that I know where you are coming from having been there and done that. Sad to say, the fact is that JW's just can't be trusted because they are just as adept as the Pharisees at justifying lying, theft, etc. with creative ways around the very Christian principles they claim to uphold. All that can be said is to learn from your sad experience and never trust a Dub's word again!
Forscher -
5
Rutherford Mind Control B S.
by frankiespeakin intheocracy.
by j. f. rutherford: .
when you read parts of it just rambles on and on with nothing no facts just hogwash gibberish and so it confusses the reader except where it gets incredibly simple and says this in the conclusion.
-
-
Forscher
Yes, it was Rutherford who started the mind control! Under CTR, the Bible Students had a lot more independence both as congregations and as individuals. After he took control, Rutherford got rid of anyone who publically disagreed with him and imposed more and more control over the congregations. By 1928 he was comfortable enough to write the following in the Yearbook:
May 23
Whither the tribes go up .... to give thanks unto the name of the Lord.--Psalm 122:4.
Three times each year the tribes of Israel went up to Jerusalem. Their going was not so much to make requests of Jehovah but to proclaim his praises and recount his goodness to them. God has now set Zion as the place where he will accept praise from his faithful ones, and in no other place does he accept praise and service. God’s organization on earth is a part of Zion, which is made up of that faithful company of anointed ones who joyfully obey his commandments to do his will. As surely as God made Jerusalem the place or center of worship, just so surely now he has made his visible organization on earth the place where he accepts the praise and service of his people, his anointed ones associate themselves together in what we call the Society to do the work of Jehovah as he has commanded and thereby proclaim the honor of his name. - 1928 IBSA YEARBOOK
Notice that he essentially declared that no worship outside of the WTBTS was acceptable to God. Thus, he set the ground work for the current JW mind control.
By the way, the quote was taken from another thread on this forum. I think that it can be found in the best of heading.
Forscher -
22
More fun and games....Reasons not to hire a JW.....
by riotgirlpeeps inso i have seen many anti experience threads etc.
my father (a jw elder) has had several businesses for a number of years.
(thanks dad i'll follow your example really well and become an excellent business person.
-
-
Forscher
With all due respect to NGP, I found that Dub employers weren't any better. They often expected more work for less pay, cheated employees out of hard earned wages (for instance, overtime pay), and had no problem with black-listing poorer Dub employees so that they had nowhere else to go. To top it all off, they had the gall bitch about how bad and lazy Dub EMPLOYEES were! About the only thing that working for Dubs ever had going for it was that I could get time off for meetings and assemblies.
I worked for years for one Dub business where, after long and hard work learning my craft, I rose to supervise a number of other employees, all of whom were paid better than me. Did those freinds get better wages because they worked harder or better than me? Did they get better wages because they were more experienced than me? NO!! They were better paid because they were married and I was not. So, they needed the money and I didn't (that was the explanation given to me by the owner). Another brother I worked for promised me one wage, and then paid me alot less. He also refused to pay for overtime, though he made us all work it. And he was an anointed brother! So, excuse me if I don't sympathize with your complaint.
Boy! It felt good to get that one off my chest!!! -
18
Why Doesn't The Org Feed It's Delegates Anymore?
by Englishman ini hear that food is no longer available at assemblies.. is that right?.
not even a cup of tea?.
this can't be right!
-
-
Forscher
I worked in the kitchens at the circuit assemblies and expediting (moving food etc. to the food stands) at the district assemblies. Some of my favorite memories from the assemblies come from then. By the time the gov't started eyeing possible tax revenues, the food service was already in decline. By then, the late 70's, the society was already purchasing pre-cooked food and selling it from food stands. In fact, the first burrito I ever ate was one I purchased at the international assembly in 1978.
My guess was that the GB didn't like the fact that many were using the food service department to escape the long hours of mind-numbing indoctrination and decided to put a stop to it. That was why the pre-packaged food in stands that only had to be manned a few minutes before the sessions. It was all about control! When the Gov't decided to tax the revenues, then they eliminated it altogether.